Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.M.Modak, J.
Sushilkumar - Appellant
Versus
Umeshkumar - Respondent
First Appeal No. 1602 of 2019
Decided On : 11-06-2021
Succession Certificate - Indian Succession Act - Section 372, Section 370, Section 295, Section 218, Section 291 - The court discussed the interpretation of legal provisions under the Indian Succession Act, including the entitlement to succession certificate, letter of administration, and heirship certificate. The court also considered the relationship between the bank and locker hirer, the nature of inquiry required for granting letter of administration, and the distribution of shares amongst legal representatives. Key legal provisions such as Section 218 and Section 291 were interpreted to determine the grant of letter of administration and the distribution of the estate.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the grant of Succession Certificate/Letter of Administration/Heirship Certificate for the estate of the deceased Motilal Sharma, including a savings bank account and lockers containing cash and golden ornaments. The trial court dismissed the application, citing various grounds, including technicalities and incorrect interpretation of the law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court had taken a rigid view on certain points and incorrectly interpreted the law. It determined that the appellants were entitled to the succession certificate for the savings bank account and the letter of administration for the estate, including the contents of the lockers. The court also addressed the distribution of shares amongst the legal representatives and directed the appellants to execute necessary bonds and pay rent to the banks.
Issues: The issues included the entitlement to succession certificate, letter of administration, and heirship certificate, the nature of the relationship between the bank and locker hirer, and the distribution of shares amongst legal representatives.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of legal provisions under the Indian Succession Act, including the entitlement to succession certificate, letter of administration, and heirship certificate. It also considered the relationship between the bank and locker hirer, the nature of inquiry required for granting letter of administration, and the distribution of shares amongst legal representatives.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the trial court, and directed the issuance of the succession certificate and letter of administration in favor of the appellants. It also directed the distribution of the estate amongst the legal representatives, execution of necessary bonds, payment of rent to the banks, and other compliance measures.
Key Points: - The appeal granted succession certificate for the savings bank account and letter of administration for the estate including locker contents. (!) (!) (!) - The court held that administration should be issued and estate distributed among legal representatives as per personal law, with bonds required as security. (!) (!) (!) - The court discussed that lockers’ contents relate to estate and not strictly debts or securities under Section 370; the bank-locker hirer relationship is not bailor–bailee; contents are for safe custody and must be administered. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The trial court was overly rigid in interpretation; non-contentious proceedings and administration can be granted where appropriate. (!) (!) - Specific directions: issue of succession certificate for SBI savings account; issue of letter of administration for three lockers’ contents; administration bonds and rental payments to banks; and disposal of banned currency notes per law. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
S.M. Modak, J. - Heard finally by consent of learned advocate appearing for the parties.
2. Admit.
3. The Court of 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, as per the judgment dated 25/07/2019 was pleased to dismiss the application of present appellants. It was for grant of Succession Certificate/Letter of Administration/Heirship Certificate. On reading the order, what this Court find is that the trial Court was too much technical in deciding the matter. In respect of certain points, the trial Court has taken rigid view whereas in respect of certain points the trial Court interpreted the law incorrectly.
4. I have heard learned advocate Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari for the Appellants, Shri Piyush Shukla, learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 2, Ms. Ruksar Parveen Sheikh, Advocate h/f Shri Anil Kumar, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 4, Mrs. Anita Mategaonkar, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 5 and Shri B.N. Mohata, Advocate for Respondent No. 6. The Respondent No. 3 though served has chosen to remain absent. The appellants have filed the pleadings, documents and evidence as per the Pursis dated 21.09.2020. The appeal was heard on that basis, by consent of both sides.
5. There is certain amount lying in the savings bank account with the State Bank of India. Though account stands in the name of Sushilkumar Motilal Sharma, he claimed that money belongs to the deceased Motilal Sharma. Apart from that, deceased Motilal was also having a locker in the State Bank of India, Kingsway Branch - Respondent No. 4, locker with Central Bank of India - Respondent No. 5 and Punjab National Bank- Respondent No. 6. Though the appellants while filing the application before the trial Court were not aware about the articles kept in the locker, when the Court Commissioner/Advocate Rakesh Ramraj Dwivedi was appointed, it was transpired that three lockers contain cash amount and golden ornaments.
6. The trail Court rejected the application on several grounds. It includes:-
a] Saving Bank account with State Bank of India does not stand in the name of deceased Motilal.
b] In his affidavit, the deponent Sushilkumar has not mentioned about the details of locker with Central Bank of India and Punjab National Bank.
c] The articles found in the lockers does not fall within the definition of 'debt' or 'security' as per the provisions of the Indian Succession Act.
d] The appellants are disentitled to the currency notes of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 1000/- denomination in view of their demonetization issued by the Central Government in the year 2016.
e] The appellant Sushilkumar has not produced any document to show how an amount of Rs. 19, 76, 034/- is deposited in his own account.
f] When the bank account of deceased Sushilkumar is frozen by State Bank of India, he ought to have filed a civil suit instead of prosecuting the present proceedings.
7. There is reply filed by present Respondent No. 6-Punjab National Bank before the trial Court. It is filed before this Court alongwith the Pursis dated 21.09.2020. It is but natural for them to give explanation in respect of averments which pertains to them. The fact of having a locker by deceased Motilal is not denied by them. They pleaded additional fact. Deceased Motilal nominated Respondent No. 2 Sunilkumar for locker. The reply filed by other respondents is not filed along with the Pursis. Neither it is pointed out to me by the respective advocates for the respondents. This Court has trusted them. Even the trial court has noted this fact. So it seems that the proceedings were non-contested before the Trial Court. Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act warrants conduct of contentious proceedings to be tried like a suit. This is not the position herein. Deceased Sushilkumar filed affidavit of examination-in-chief on 06.10.2012 and on 11.04.2018 [i.e. after the amendment]. Originally, the appellants only prayed for grant of Succession Certificate. By way of amendment, alternatively they have asked for gr
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
