SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1955 Supreme(Mad) 298

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr. Justice Ramaswami, J
Venkatalakshmi Ammal
Versus
The Central Bank of India, Ltd., Coimbatore Branch, by its local Agent
A.A.O. No. 93 of 1954.
Decided On : 11 November 1955

Advocates:
D. Ramaswami Ayyangar and T.K. Subba Rao for Appellant.
K.S. Desikan for Respondent.

Succession certificate requirement for claiming the amount outstanding in Savings Bank Account.

Headnote:Succession Act, 1925-Section 214 - Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937- Section 3(1) -Requirement of succession certificate for claiming the amount outstanding in the name of the husband, by the widow in the Saving Bank Account.

Judgment

This is an appeal preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge of Coimbatore in A.S.No. 329 of 1953, reversing the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsiff of Coimbatore in O.S.No. 991 of 1952.

The facts are: - The plaintiff Venkatalakshmi Ammal’s husband Narayana Rao had opened a “Home Savings Safe” account with the Central Bank of India, Limited, Coimbatore branch. Narayana Rao died on 12th September, 1950 having to his credit in the above account Rs. 2,146. The late Narayana Rao had executed and registered a will on 9th June, 1950, under which he has bequeathed this property among others absolutely to his wife Venkatalakshmi Ammal. On this Venkatalakshmi Ammal asking the Bank to pay the amount to her, the Bank has been insisting upon a succession certificate or indemnity bond. Therefore, this Venkatalakshmi Ammal filed O.S. No. 991 of 1952 for recovery of Rs. 2,200. The learned District Munsiff held that under section 214 of the Indian Succession Act the plaintiff was bound to produce a succession certificate but she is saved from doing so by reason of the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act. He therefore decreed the suit in plaintiff’s favour. The Bank appealed. In appeal the learned District Judge held that the plaintiff was not saved from producing a succession certificate and reversed the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsiff. Hence this appeal by the defeated plaintiff.

Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act is mandatory, and the Court cannot pass a decree even if it was otherwise satisfied that the plaintiff was really the heir or successor of the deceased. The corresponding provisions of Act X of 1865 provided for a power in the Court, to pass a decree under certain circumstances. But under this section, no decree can be passed under any circumstances. A conditional decree directing the production of certificate before the execution of a decree is illegal. If the succession certificate is not produced before the decree, after an opportunity has been given to the plaintiff to produce it, the only order which the Court can pass upon the suit is to dismiss it. But if an appeal is preferred succession certificate can be produced in the appellate Court: Bhudat Singh v. Mangat Bai1. And it is a grave irregularity, which will be remedied by the High Court, to pass a decree before a succession certificate is produced in such a case, Ghisu v. Ram Ballabh2; Virayan Chettiar v. Srinivasa Chariar3. Even a consent decree cannot be passed by the Court upon the admission of the debt by the defendant. The certificate must be produced. It is not enough to produce an order directing the issue of a certificate, Mulchand v. Motichand4.

Such being the mandatory provisions of the section, the first question that falls for consideration is its applicability. On an analysis of all the decisions on the point, it may be seen that the section applies only if all the five conditions mentioned below are satisfied at the same time:

(1) The claim must be for the recovery of a debt and the relationship of debtor and creditor must exist between the defendant and deceased.

(2) The debt must be owing at the death of the deceased.

(3) The claim must be based on succession.

(4) The claimant must be claiming to be entitled to the effects of the deceased.

(5) The claim must be against the debtor of the deceased.

In this case the requirements 1,2,4 and 5 concur. I need not point out that a bank deposit is a debt as a debt has been defined, in the words of Lord Lindley in Webb v. Stenton,1 as a sum of money which is now payable or will become payable in future by reason of a present obligation. Therefore, the only point to be considered is whether the claim is based upon succession.

Under the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, section 3(1), when a Hindu governed by the school of Mithakshara Law dies leaving separate property, as in the instant case, his widow shall be entitled in respect of such proper





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top