Back
1993 Supreme(AP) 243
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU
Branch Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Kesanakurri Branch, Kesanakurru - Appellant
Versus
Gadiraju Rama Bhaskara Viswanadha Raju - Respondent
Decided On : 04-27-93
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a bank does not have the jurisdiction to insist upon the production of a Succession Certificate for pledged gold articles when it is not a debtor of the deceased.
Headnote:
Succession Certificate - Return of Pledged Gold Articles - The court held that the bank had no jurisdiction to insist upon the production of a Succession Certificate or letters of administration or probate in the case of pledged gold articles. The Second Appeal was dismissed, and the appellant-bank was ordered to return the pledged gold ornaments to the respondent.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit for a mandatory injunction to the appellant for the return of gold articles pledged with the appellant-Bank. The appellant-Bank contended that unless a Succession Certificate is produced, the articles cannot be returned.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the bank had no jurisdiction to insist upon the production of a Succession Certificate for the pledged gold articles, as the appellant-Bank was not a debtor of the deceased. The Second Appeal was dismissed, and the appellant-bank was ordered to return the pledged gold ornaments to the respondent.
Issues: The main issue was whether the bank had the right to insist upon the production of a Succession Certificate for the pledged gold articles.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the bank had no jurisdiction to insist upon the production of a Succession Certificate or letters of administration or probate in the case of pledged gold articles, as the appellant-Bank was not a debtor of the deceased.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed, and the appellant-bank was ordered to return the pledged gold ornaments to the respondent.
( 1 ) THE defendant in O. S. No. 112/88 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, amalapuram is the appellant. The respondent filed the suit for a mandatory injunction to the appellant for return of the gold articles shown in the plaint schedule, pledged with the appellant-Bank. The respondent s father-late gadiraju Subbaraju borrowed a sum of Rs. 8,000/- on 15-3-1984 under gold loan from the appellant-Bank and pledged gold jewellery mentioned in the plaint schedule. Subsequently, Subbaraju died having executed a registered will dated 28-2-1983 bequeathing his immoveable and moveable properties to the respondent. Therefore, the respondent is entitled to recover the gold jewellery after discharging the loan. However, in the suit widow and daughter of Subbaraju were also impleaded as defendant Nos. 2 and 3. Although an amount of Rs. 11,340/- being the principal together with interest was paid on 23-6-1986 towards the loan account No. 49/84 by the respondent, the appellant- bank did not return the gold articles. The appellant-Bank contended that unless a Succession Certificate is produced, the articles cannot be returned. The trial court as well as the appellate Court, rejected the said contention and decreed the suit. This second appeal is filed challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below.
( 2 ) SRI. C. Poorniah, the learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that unless succession Certificate is produced, the gold articles cannot be returned to the respondent as the registered will produced by the respondent may or may not be true and the appellant-Bank is justified is refusing to return the pledged articles in the absence of production of a Succession Certificate as the question as to who is entitled to those articles cannot be decided by the Bank.
( 3 ) IT is relevant to note Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act, which read. thus:" (1) No Court shall- (a) pass a decree against a debtor of a deceased person for payment of his debt to a person claiming or succession to be entitled to the effects of the deceased person or to any part thereof; or (b) proceed upon an application of a person claiming to be so entitled, to execute against such a debtor a decree or order for the payment of his debt, except on the production, by the person so claiming of - (i) a probate or letters of administration evidencing the grant to him of administration to the estate of the deceased,or (ii) a certificate granted under Section 31 of Section 32 of the administrator-General s Act, 1913, and having the debt mentioned therein, or (iii) a succession certificate granted under Part X and having the debt specified therein, or (iv) a certificate granted under the Succession Certificate Act, 1889, or (v) a certificate granted under Bombay Regulation No. VIII of 1827, and, if granted, after the first day of May, 1889, having the debt specified therein. (2) The word debt in sub-section (1) includes any debt except rent, revenue or profits payable in respect of land used for agricultural purposes. "a reading of this section makes it clear that no Court shall pass a decree against a debtor of a deceased person for payment of his debt, or execute a decree obtained by the deceased person except on production of a probate, letters of administration, or a succession certificate, etc.
( 4 ) IN this case, the appellant-Bank is not a debtor of the deceased-Gadiraju subbaraju. Therefore, the question of submitting a probate or letters of administration or a Succession Certificate does not arise.
( 5 ) THE Orissa High Court in Branch Manager, S. B. I Puri vs. Satyaban Pathal, observed that Succession Certificate can be granted on an application under section 372 of the Indian Succession Act in respect of a debt or a security. Interpreting Section 370 of the Indian Succession Act, which defines security as any pronote, debenture, stock or other security of Central or State Government, any bond, any stock or debenture or share in a
