The liability to refund the ornaments kept in a safe-deposit locker is not a debt within the meaning of Section 370 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and therefore, a succession certificate cannot be granted for such liability.

( 1 ) THIS is revisional application at the instance of the petitioner, State Bank of India and is directed against an order dated Dec. 3, 1980 passed in Act 39, Case No, 414/78 of the Court of the District Delegate at Alipore.

( 2 ) FACTS are simple and may be stated thus.

( 3 ) ONE Juthikabala Porel wife of the opposite party No. 1 kept certain ornaments and jewelleries in a Safe-Deposit Locker of the State Bank of India at its main branch, Calcutta. She having died, her husband the opposite party herein applied for succession certificate in respect of the said goods which was registered as Act 39, Case No. 414/78, After the filing of the said application a question was raised by the Court as to whether the prayer for grant of succession certificate in respect of the said goods was maintainable. After hearing the learned Advocate for the opposite party the petitioner in that case, the learned District Delegate by his order dated June 12, 1978 held, on the authority of the decision in the case of Dina Nath v. Balkrishna, that the liability to refund the ornaments was a debt and as such the application for the grant of succession certificate in respect of the same was maintainable. The petitioner was accordingly directed to file the requisite stamp duty, Subsequently on Feb. 18, 1980 the succession certificate was granted. Thereupon the petitioner herein, the State Bank of India filed an application for reconsideration of the order dated June 12, 1978. This application was disposed of by the order impugned, it was held that the question regarding maintainability of the application for succession certificate was thoroughly considered by the order dated June 12, 1978 and on the basis thereof the succession certificate was granted by the Court on Feb. 18, 80. The learned Judge held that the application of the State Bank of India was misconceived in so far as the order for grant was required to be revoked before the order dated June 12, 1978 could be reconsidered. The application was accordingly rejected.

( 4 ) THE petitioner being aggrieved has moved the present revisional application which has been heard on notice to and upon contest by the opposite party.

( 5 ) MR. Ghosh appearing in support of the revisional application contended that the ornaments which were kept in deposit in the Safe-Deposit-Locker of the State Bank were neither a debt nor a security within the meaning of the provisions of Section 370 of the Indian Succession Act and as such no succession certificate could be asked for or granted in respect of the said goods. The expression 'security' has been explained in Sub-section (2) of Section 370 but the expression 'debt' has neither been explained nor defined. It is however nobody's case that the ornaments in question fall within the category of security within the meaning of Section 370. The question therefore is whether it is a debt or not. In support of the contention that it is not a debt. Mr. Ghosh relied on a decision in the case of Shyam Sundari Devi v. Sarti Devi,. The facts of that case however were different. There the deceased had pledged with a bank certain ornaments by way of security for the debt (loan?) which the Bank had advanced. It was held that succession certificate could not be granted and asked for in respect of the ornaments since it was not a debt due from the Bank. In that case the Bank had advanced a loan to the deceased and the ornaments were pledged with the Bank merely as a security for the repayment of the same. In the circumstances the Bank could not be said to be a debtor in respect of the articles, On the contrary the deceased was a debtor to the Bank. Therefore, this decision does not seem to be directly touching the point involved in the case before us.

( 6 ) THE decision relied on by the learned Judge as also by the opposite party before us is also not to the point. There a lady died during the Kumbhamela tragedy and the ornaments found on her body were