SBCMA No.4897/2011

Chandanmal Lalwani Vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur

1 of 3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

:: ORDER ::

S.B. CIVIL MISC.APPEAL NO.4897/2011

Chandanmal Lalwani s/o Shri Mishrimal Lalwani, b/c Oswal

Vs.

State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Main Branch, Balotra,

District Barmer & Ors.

Date of Order : Wednesday, 29/07/2015

P R E S E N T

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

Mr.Rakesh Arora for the appellant.

Mr.Jagdish Vyas for the respondent-SBBJ.

- -

By the Court (Oral) :

1.

The present appeal is directed against the order dated

19.03.2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Balotra, partly

allowing the application under Section 372 of the Indian Succesion

Act, filed by the applicant-appellant Chandanmal Lalwani, while

negating the said request of succession certificate in respect of the

bank locker No.54-A, which was in the name of the Family Trust, of

which his father Mishrimal Lalwani and his mother Smt.Jadav Devi,

were the only trustees, and after their death, he became the sole

trustee to operate the Trust locker.

2.

The Bank asked for a succession certificate to allow the

appellant to operate that Bank locker of the Trust and upon its

refusal, the present appeal was required to be filed by the appellant.

SBCMA No.4897/2011

Chandanmal Lalwani Vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur

2 of 3

3.

Learned counsel for the appellant Mr.Rakesh Arora

referring to the provisions of Section 73 of the Indian Succession Act

as well as Exhibit-1-Bank Locker Agreement, submitted that as legal

representative of his parents, as also Exhibit-4, order of the

competent authority of the State of Maharashtra, declaring him as

the sole trustee of the said Family Trust, the Bank could not have

refused to operate the bank locker No.54-A, and even in the absence

of any succession certificate in his favour under Section 372 of the

Indian Succession Act, he deserves to be permitted to operate the

bank locker. He however, submitted that these documents though

produced alongwith the application under Section 372 of the Indian

Succession Act before the learned trial court, were not separately

produced before the Bank, asking for such permission to operate the

bank locker.

4.

Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank Mr.Jagdish

Vyas submits that these documents may now be permitted to be

produced before the respondent-Bank and appropriate orders in this

regard will be passed in accordance with law, by the competent

authority of the Bank.

5.

In view of this, the present appeal is disposed of, without

any decision on the merits against the order dated 19.03.2008

passed by the learned trial court of the learned District Judge,

Balotra, with liberty to the appellant to approach the respondent-

State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur with the aforesaid documents and

other relevant documents, in his favour, and it is expected that the

respondent-Bank will pass speaking and reasoned order thereon,

SBCMA No.4897/2011

Chandanmal Lalwani Vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur

3 of 3

either allowing the appellant to operate the said bank locker in

question. If the Bank however, intends to refuse the request of the

appellant on the ground other than the succession certificate, it will

record specific reasons for such refusal. Copy of this order may be

sent to the learned court below and the concerned parties forthwith.

(Dr. VINEET KOTHARI), J.

Skant/-

I.No.12(M)