Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 35275
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, J
R.Vaithilingam – Appellant
Versus
The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Office of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Virudhunagar Division, Virudhunagar Town and District – Respondent
W.M.P.(MD)No.9900 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu
For the Respondents: Mr.K.Govindarajan Deputy Solicitor General of India
Nominee's death without heirs allows fund release to legal heir upon verification, without succession certificate.
Headnote:First Paragraph: Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenged an order rejecting disbursement of funds from a joint savings bank account opened by deceased parents, claiming sole legal heir status based on death and legal heirship certificates. Post office authorities relied on nomination by the father describing the nominee as wife. Court found no error in the impugned order but noted nominee's death without heirs. Second Paragraph: Issues framed around validity of nomination claim versus legal heirship rights and need for succession certificate. Ratio decidendi: In absence of rival claimants post nominee's death, no impediment to release funds upon verification of no legal heirs, avoiding civil court relegation. Third Paragraph: Writ petition disposed directing fresh representation, field enquiry within three months, and release of amount if no heirs found.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. joint account facts and nomination dispute (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. nomination validity and nominee status (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. release funds post nominee death verification (Para 7 , 8) |
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 28.04.2023 passed by the first respondent and consequently seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to disburse a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- deposited by the petitioner’s father in Savings Bank Account No.2839515731.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the said account was jointly opened by his father, Ramasamy, and his mother, Anna Lakshmi, and that the said amount was deposited therein. Anna Lakshmi died on 18.11.2010, and the petitioner’s father died on 06.06.2020. Based on the death certificates and the legal heirship certificate, the petitioner claims to be the sole surviving legal heir, being the son of the deceased.
3. It is further stated that the third respondent, namely, Veeralakshmi, attempted to withdraw the said amount by making a false claim, which led the petitioner to lodge a police complaint.
4. When the petitioner requested disbursement of the amount, the impugned order was passed rejecting the request on the ground that the third respondent had been nominated by the petitioner’s father. It was stated that in the presence of a nominee, the amount cannot be released to others, and the petitioner was advised to approach the competent Court for appropriate relief.
Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
5. The petitioner contends that the third respondent is a stranger and that the respondents cannot insist on a succession certificate, particularly, when she is not the legally wedded spouse of his father.
6. Per contra, the records indicate that after the demise of the petitioner's mother in 2010, the petitioner's father had nominated the third respondent and described her as his 'wife'. Therefore, the said contention cannot be accepted. However, notice was ordered in the writ petition and duly served, but the third respondent did not contest the matter.
7. A memo has been filed on behalf of the petitioner stating that the third respondent died on 10.01.2025 and that she has no legal heirs. In such circumstances, there is no impediment to releasing the amount to the petitioner, and in the absence of any rival claim, the parties need not be relegated to a civil court for obtaining a succession certificate.
8. In view of the above, while finding no error in the impugned order, the writ petition is disposed of on the following terms:-
(i) The petitioner shall submit a fresh representation along with a web copy of this order, indicating the death of the third respondent.
(ii) The respondents 1 and 2 shall conduct a field-level enquiry to ascertain whether the said Veeralakshmi has any legal heirs. If none are found, the amount shall be released to the petitioner. If any legal heir exists and a dispute arises, it is open to the petitioner to approach the competent civil court for a succession certificate.
(iii) If the amount is not released, the respondents shall inform the petitioner in writing about the existence of any such legal heir.
(iv) The above exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(v) No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
