Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(D. P. Madon J.)
In Re : RANCHHODDAS GOVINDDAS BANATWALA
Advocate Appeared
For petitioner-G. E. Vahanvati.
Amicus curiae-D. R. Zaiwala.
Whether movable property other than a liquidated sum of money is a debt as contemplated by Part X of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, so as to enable the Court to issue a succession certificate in respect thereof.
Fact of the Case:
A Hindu lady named Taraben alias Tarabai Govinddas Banatwala died interstate at Bombay on October 28, 1963 leaving her surviving as her only heirs and next of kin according to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, by which she was governed, her husband Govinddas and three sons, namely, the petitioner, Ramesh and Mahesh. On February 9, 1966 Govinddas died interstate leaving him surviving as his only heirs and next of kin according to the Hindu Succession Act his three sons above named. The petitioner applied for and obtained from this Court letters of administration to the property and credits of the said Govinddas on November 29, 1968 in Petition No. 333 of 1968. By reason of the death of Govinddas the only persons now entitled to the estate of the deceased Tarabai are her three sons. Amongst the property left by the deceased are five shares of the Atul Products Limited, Ahmedabad, and the right to obtain one more share which was offered to her shortly before her death and was allotted in her name on February 25, 1965. On an application being made to the said company for transfer of the said six shares to the names of the heirs of the deceased, the said company by its letter dated March 20, 1972 expressed its inability to do so unless a certified copy of the succession certificate or letters of administration or probate was submitted to it for its office records. Further, during her lifetime the deceased Tarabai pledged one multiple gold necklace and two gold, bangles, in all weighing about fifty tolas, with the State Bank of India, Gurgaum Branch, Bombay, as security for a demand loan of Rs. 3,000. After the death of the deceased, on August 2, 1966 the petitioner paid off to the said bank the full amount of the said loan along with the interest accused due thereon. The laid bank, however, informed the petitioner that the gold ornaments could not be returned to him unless he obtained representation either by way of letters of administration or a succession certificate to the estate of the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The word 'debt' does not include any movable property other than a specific or ascertained or Liquidated sum of money.
Issues: Whether a pledge’s obligation to return 00 the pledgor’s heirs moveable property pledged with him on the debt for which such property was a security being discharged is a debt within the meaning of that term as used in Part X of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Ratio Decidendi: The definition of 'debt' given in section 214(2) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, uses the word 'includes' and not 'means' and is, therefore, in the language of Craies on Statute Law (7th Edn., p. 213), 'extensive' and not 'explanatory and prima facie restrictive'. The word 'debt' as used in the Indian Succession Act, 1925, includes not only a liquidated or specified sum of money or a monetary debt but also the rendering of service and the delivery of goods.
Final Decision: The petitioner would be entitled to a succession certificate in respect of the five shares of the Atul Products Limited and one right share of the said company and the unclaimed dividends thereon, but he would not be entitled to a succession certificate in respect of the multiple gold' necklace and the two gold bangles which were pledged by the deceased with the State Bank of India, Girgaum Branch, Bombay. Leave granted to withdraw the petition, with liberty either to file a petition for letters of administration in respect of the entire estate of the deceased Tarabai or a petition for a succession certificate, limited' only to the said shares and the dividends thereon, as the petitioner may be advised.
2. The facts which have given rise to this question are that a Hindu lady named Taraben alias Tarabai Govinddas Banatwala died interstate at Bombay on October 28, 1963 leaving her surviving as her only heirs and next of kin according to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, by which she was governed, her husband Govinddas and three sons, namely, the petitioner, Ramesh and Mahesh. On February 9, 1966 Govinddas died interstate leaving him surviving as his only heirs and next of kin according to the Hindu Succession Act his three sons above named. The petitioner applied for and obtained from this Court letters of administration to the property and credits of the said Govinddas on November 29, 1968 in Petition No. 333 of 1968. By reason of the death of Govinddas the only persons now entitled to the estate of the deceased Tarabai are her three sons. Amongst the property left by the deceased are five shares of the Atul Products Limited, Ahmedabad, and the right to obtain one more share which was offered to her shortly before her death and was allotted in her name on February 25, 1965. On an application being made to the said company for transfer of the said six shares to the names of the heirs of the deceased, the said company by its letter dated March 20, 1972 expressed its inability to do so unless a certified copy of the succession certificate or letters of administration or probate was submitted to it for its office records. Further, during her lifetime the deceased Tarabai pledged one multiple gold necklace and two gold, bangles, in all weighing about fifty tolas, with the State Bank of India, Gurgaum Branch, Bombay, as security for a demand loan of Rs. 3,000. After the death of the deceased, on August 2, 1966 the petitioner paid off to the said bank the full amount of the said loan along with the interest accused due thereon. The laid bank, however, informed the petitioner that the gold ornaments could not be returned to him unless he obtained representation either by way of letters of administration or a succession certificate to the estate of the deceased.
3. On January 6, 1975 the petitioner filed this petition for obtaining a succession certificate in respect of the said gold ornaments and the said six shares of the Atul Products Limited and the uncashed dividends on the said, shares. To the said petition he has annexed letters of consent given by his two brothers giving their consent to the succession certificate being granted to the petitioner. There is no dispute that the petitioner is entitled to a succession certificate in respect of the said shares and the uncashed dividends thereon. The, question which arises is with reference to the granting of the succession certificate in respect of the said gold ornaments.
4. The invariable practice of the testamentary department of this Court is not to grant a succession certificate in respect of any movable property other than a liquidated sum of money or a security falling within the definition of that term given in sub-section (2) of section 370 of the Indian Succession. Act, 1925. accordingly, this petition was placed before me for hearing. As this petition raised an important question and as there was no other side appearing before the Court, at the Court's request Mr. D. R. Zaiwala appeared amicus curiae. At the outset I must mention that the Court is greatly indebted to Mr. G.E Vahanvati, learned counsel for the petitioner, and to Mr. D. R. Zaiwala for the industry and research they have brought to bear upon the matter and for the very able assistance they have rendered to the Court:
5. The grant of succession certificates is dealt with in Part X of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Under section 372
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
