Executors may access estate funds without excessive documentation if claims are supported by valid wills and precedents.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioners are two in number. They claim that they are the nephews of one Sri. Raju Makil and that they are the executors of the Ext.P1 Will executed by Sri. Raju Makil. Sri. Raju Makil died on 16.04.2025, issueless. Ext.P1 Will was executed in favour of several persons with respect to the various deposits lying in different Bank accounts and also other immovable properties. On the death of the testator of Ext.P1 Will, the petitioners approached the Banks mentioned in the Will, and except for the respondent/Federal Bank, all other banks have released the amounts lying in the deposit in the name of the deceased to the account opened by the petitioners in the South Indian Bank for distribution of the amounts in accordance with the terms of the Will. The Respondent/bank issued Ext.P10, insisting on a Declaration from the legal heirs of the deceased to the effect that the Will is the last and final Will of the deceased and the same was not cancelled or amended during the life time of the testator and consenting the Bank to act upon the Will and also the Legal Heirship Certificate of the deceased/Family Membership Certificate to confirm the details of the legal heirs of the deceased. Hence, this Writ Petition is filed seeking direction to the respondent to release the entire amount lying in deposit with the Respondent bank mentioned in Ext.P1 Will without insisting on the production of the documents mentioned in Ext.P10.

2. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Sri.P.Deepak pointed out Exts.P4, P5, and P6 Letters issued by SBI, South Indian Bank, and HSBC, respectively, and also Ext.P7 by UN Federal Credit Union, an International Establishment transferring the amounts to the account opened by the Petitioners in South Indian Bank relying on the said Will. It is contended that the Petitioners are the nominees of the deceased with respect to the deposits with the Respondent. The learned Senior Counsel relied on the decision of this Court in Ambily Jose v. Sub Registrar, Ekm. [2025 (1) KHC 276], in which, in similar circumstances, the executors were permitted to get release of the deposits by giving an undertaking to indemnify the Bank therein, which is the respondent herein.

3. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/Bank, Sri.Mohan Jacob George, submitted that Ext.P10 was issued in compliance with the uniform policy adopted by the Bank in accordance with the Guidelines issued by the RBI. The conditions therein are made only to safeguard the interests of all. The conditions could not be said to be unreasonable or unwarranted.

4. I have considered the rival contentions.

5. There is no dispute regarding the execution of the Ext.P1 Will by Sri. Raju Makil and the death of Sri. Raju Makil. There is no dispute that, as per Exts.P1, the Petitioners are the executors of the Will. There is no dispute that the testator died issueless and the Petitioners are the nominees of the deposits of the testator available with the Respondent. Ext.P1 Will is registered and is dated 26.05.2023. Exts.P4, P5 and P6 Letters issued by SBI, South Indian Bank, and HSBC, respectively, and also Ext.P7 by UN Federal Credit Union would show that the deposits available with those establishments in the name of the testator are transferred to the account opened by the Petitioners in the South Indian Bank for distribution of the same among the legatees. Under these circumstances and in view of the decision of this Court in Ambily Jose (supra), I am of the view that the insistence of the conditions mentioned in Ext.P10 is quite unwarranted.

6. Accordingly, I allow this Writ Petition, directing the respondent/Bank to release the amounts standing in the account of the deceased Sri.