The main legal point established in the judgment is that under the Indian Succession Act, heirs of a deceased Hindu obtain title to the property the moment the deceased dies intestate, and it is not essential for them to obtain letters of administration before operating the property.

1. This is a second appeal against the judgement and-decree of the Additional District Judge, Jullundur in which an important question of law has cropped up for decision. There are cross-objections as well aiming the same. The litigation has arisen in the following circumstances :-

One Wazir Ram Rattan deposited a sealed box in the State Bank of India at its Jullundur Branch vide safe-deposit receipt No. 25/113 entered in Account no. 22/563. Somewhere in Dec., 1957, Wazir Ram Rattan died. His widow Champa Wati came to be entered as the account-holder in circumstances which remain obscure. On Sep. 23, 1963, Champa Wati also died. It appears that the children of Mr. and Mrs. Wazir Ram Rattan remained oblivious of the sealed box lying in the bank. It was almost 19 years after the death of Champa Wati, they instituted a suit of May 14, 1982 in the Court of Sub-Judge Ist Class, Jullundur claiming a declaration that they were owners and entitled to the sealed box lying in the bank with consequential relief of allowing them to operate the said safe-deposit. Incidentally they are thirteen in number. The sole defendant was the State Bank of India through its Branch Manager. The bank disputed the claim of the plaintiffs. It denied the plaintiffs being the legal heirs of Champa Wati. It equally disputed the plaintiffs rights to the declaration, as prayed for. It even went to question the maintainability of the suit in the present form as also with regard to its being properly valued for the purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction.

2. The trial Court framed the following four issues besides that of relief :-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Champa Wati ? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the declaration prayed for ? OPP

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPP

4. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction ? OPD"

3. The finding of the trial Court on issue No. 1 was in favour of the plaintiffs because the evidence of the plaintiffs in support of the issue had gone unrebutted and unchallenged. Issue No. 4 was decided in favour of the plaintiffs with regard to valuation for the purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction. Issues Nos. 2 and 3, being inter-connected, were decided together. It was held that the plaintiffs were entitled to the declaration, as asked for, and that obtaining of a succession certificate (which the Court perhaps meant was letters of administration) was not necessary. On these findings, the plaintiffs were granted relief of injunction as prayed for.

4. The State Bank of India preferred an appeal in the District Court. All the findings, as recorded by the learned trial Court, were affirmed. However, the decree of the trial Court, while being maintained, was modified. It was ordered that before the plaintiffs start operating the box, an inventory shall be prepared in the presence of the duly authorised agent of the bank and shall be signed by the plaintiffs or their attorney and the agent of the bank. Further, it was ordered that the plaintiffs shall furnish security in the amount of Rs. Four lakhs to the satisfaction of the duly authorised agent of the bank before operating the lock-up and preparation of the inventory undertaking to indemnify any other claimant. Lastly, it was ordered that the plaintiffs shall also be liable to pay the estate duty and any other dues on the value of the contents of the box.

5. The plaintiffs now in turn have filed this second appeal primarily being aggrieved against the conditions imposed by the lower appellate Court. The bank, on the other hand, has filed cross-objections to reagitate its plea that the suit as such was not maintainable and unless letters of administration had been obtained by the plaintiffs, the sealed box could not be allowed to be operated upon. The fact that the plaintiffs are the heirs of the deceased is no longer in question as the finding on issue No. 1 stands