A succession certificate is not required for access to bank lockers as the contents do not qualify as 'debt' or 'security' under the Indian Succession Act.

1. This revision under S.384(3) read with S.388 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (henceforth, "the Act") is directed against the order dated 23-4-1996 passed by District Judge, Raipur, in Misc. Judicial Case No. 4/95 whereby an order for grant of succession certificate in favour of non - applicant Nos. 1 and 2 has been passed.

2. Rajan Yashpal, who was resident of Raipur, died on 18-6-1986. During his life - time he was doing the business of selling motor parts. He opened a locker with Dist. Co - operative Central Bank, Raipur. After his death non - applicant No. 1 Sobha Walia claiming herself to be the wife of Rajan Yashpal and non - applicant No. 2 Vikki claiming himself to be a minor child of Rajan Yashpal filed an application for grant of succession certificate under S.372 of the Act, for access to the locker and to receive the ornaments kept therein. Applicant Vimala Devi claiming herself to be the mother of deceased Rajan Yashpal pleaded that during lifetime of her son Rajan Yashpal, marriage tie in between he son and Sobha Walia was broken by a divorce agreement in accordance with their custom. Non - applicant No. 2 namely Vikki is not son of Rajan Yashpal. She also filed an application under S.372 of the Act for grant of succession certificate in her favour for access to locker and recovery of ornaments kept therein. Both the applications were filed before the Civil Judge, Class I, Raipur, who registered the case, investigated the claim and passed a common order dated 2-3-1995 in Succession Case No. 33/86.

3. Learned trial Court held that Smt. Sobha Walia is a legally wedded wife of Rajan Yashpal, no valid divorce took place in between them and Vikki is the legitimate child of Rajan Yashpal, but taking into the fact that Smt. Sobha Walia was living consideration separate from her husband and when she left him, she at that time received all her articles, the key of the locker was found with Vimala Devi and her statement regarding ornaments does not appear to be unreasonable, therefore, finding a dispute regarding ownership of the property kept inside the locker, refused to grant succession certificate in favour of any of the parties. The order was assailed in appeal and the appellate Court vide impugned order allowed the appeal and directed the lower Court to issue succession certificate in favour of Smt. Sobha Walia and Vikki on furnishing security to the tune of value of the ornaments.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that access to locker and ornaments kept therein do not fall within the definition of debt and security, therefore, no succession certificate in favour of any of the parties is permissible to be issued under Chap.10 of the Indian Succession Act. On the contrary, learned counsel for non - applicants No. 1 and 2 opposed the same.

5. From reading as a whole, the provisions as enshrined in Part X of the Act, it is as clear as crystal that the Court has only power to issue succession certificate with respect to any debt or security.

6. Security has been enlisted in S.370 (2) of the Act. Admittedly, access to locker and the ornaments kept inside it, do not fall within the list as enshrined under S.370(2) of the Act.

7. It is well established that a sum of money which is certainty and in all events payable is a debt, without regard to the fact whether it is payable now or at future time. Access to locker and ornaments kept inside it do not fall within the definition of debt. I am of the opinion that requirement to have a succession certificate for access to the bank lockers or for realizing the ornaments kept inside the locker is not envisaged by S.370 of the Ac