Law Web: Can the court refuse to issue a letter of administration regarding demonetized currency notes laying in the bank locker?

Merely because the Government has issued a

demonetization policy, it does not mean that the claim as to

the requisite currency notes is extinguished. If we go by the

report of Assistant Superintendent, we may find that apart

from banned currency notes of Rs.500/- and Rs. 1000/- notes

of Rs. 50/- and Rs. 100/- denomination were also found in

the locker. Trial Court has wrongly rejected the claim in toto.

Even in respect of banned currency notes, the appellants can

approach the concerned authorities and may do the needful.

It is very well true that as the claim is pending for

adjudication before the trial Court, it was not possible for the

appellants to approach the competent authority under the

Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017. This

Court hope that when approached, the competent authority

will consider the claim of the appellants in respect of banned

currency notes. {Para 20}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1602 OF 2019

Sushilkumar Motilal Sharma Vs Umeshkumar s/o Motilal Sharma,

CORAM : S.M. MODAK, J .

PRONOUNCED ON : 11.06.2021

ORAL JUDGMENT

1] Heard finally by consent of learned advocate

appearing for the parties.

Amendment carry out as

per Registrar (J) order

dt. 17/03/2020

Sd/-

C.F. Appellant

2] Admit.

3] The Court of 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division,

Nagpur, as per the judgment dated 25/07/2019 was pleased

to dismiss the application of present appellants. It was for

grant of Succession Certificate / Letter of Administration /

Heirship Certificate. On reading the order, what this Court

find is that the trial Court was too much technical in deciding

the matter. In respect of certain points, the trial Court has

taken rigid view whereas in respect of certain points the trial

Court interpreted the law incorrectly.

4] I have heard learned advocate Shri A.C.

Dharmadhikari for the Appellants, Shri Piyush Shukla,

learned Advocate for the Respondent No.2, Ms Ruksar

Parveen Sheikh, Advocate h/f Shri Anil Kumar, learned

Advocate for Respondent No.4, Mrs Anita Mategaonkar,

learned Advocate for Respondent No.5 and Shri B.N. Mohata,

Advocate for Respondent No.6. The Respondent No.3 though

served has chosen to remain absent. The appellants have filed

the pleadings, documents and evidence as per the Pursis

dated 21.09.2020. The appeal was heard on that basis, by

consent of both sides.

5] There is certain amount lying in the savings bank

account with the State Bank of India. Though account stands

in the name of Sushilkumar Motilal Sharma, he claimed that

money belongs to the deceased Motilal Sharma. Apart from

that, deceased Motilal was also having a locker in the State

Bank of India, Kingsway Branch - Respondent No.4, locker

with Central Bank of India - Respondent No.5 and Punjab

National Bank- Respondent No.6. Though the appellants

while filing the application before the trial Court were not

aware about the articles kept in the locker, when the Court

Commissioner/Advocate Rakesh Ramraj Dwivedi was

appointed, it was transpired that three lockers contain cash

amount and golden ornaments.

6] The trail Court rejected the application on several

grounds. It includes :-

a] Saving Bank account with State Bank of

India does not stand in the name of deceased

Motilal.

b] In his affidavit, the deponent Sushilkumar

has not mentioned about the details of locker

with Central Bank of India and Punjab

National Bank.

c] The articles found in the lockers does not

fall within the definition of ‘debt’ or ‘security’ as

per the provisions of the Indian Succession Act.

d] The appellants are disentitled to the

currency notes of Rs.500/-and Rs.1000/-

denomination in view of their demonetization

issued by the Central Government in the year

2016.

e] The appellant Sushilkumar has not

produced any document to show how an

amount of Rs. 19,76,034/- is deposited in his

own account.

f] When the bank account of deceased

Sushilkumar is frozen by State Bank of India, he

ought to have filed a civil suit instead of

prosecuting the present proceedings.

7] There is reply filed by present Respondent No.6-

Punjab National Bank before the trial Court. It is filed before

this Court alongwith the Pursis dated 21.09.2020. It is but

natural for them to give explanation in respect of averments

which pertains to them. The fact of having a locker by

deceased Motilal is not denied by them. They pleaded

additional fact. Deceased Motilal nominated Respondent No.2

Sunilkumar for locker. The reply filed by other respondents is

not filed along with the Pursis. Neither it is pointed out to me

by the respective advocates for the respondents. This Court

has trusted them. Even the trial court has noted this fact. So

it seems that the proceedings were non-contested before the

Trial Court. Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act

warrants conduct of contentious proceedings to be tried like a

suit. This is not the position herein. Deceased Sushilkumar

filed affidavit of examination-in-chief on 06.10.2012 and on

11.04.2018 [i.e. after the amendment]. Originally, the

appellants only prayed for grant of Succession Certificate. By

way of amendment, alternatively they have asked for grant of

letter of administration or heirship certificate. They also

examined the Court Commissioner / Advocate Rakesh Ramraj

Dwivedi. Except on behalf of Punjab National Bank –

Respondent No.6 no one cross-examined the learned

Commissioner. On the basis of this evidence, trial Court

dismissed the application. After hearing the learned

Advocates and perusal of the record, the following points

arise for my determination :--

Sr.

No.

Points Findings

A. Whether the appellants are entitled

to get Succession Certificate/Letter of

Administration/Heirship Certificate

in respect of the money standing in

savings bank account and the articles

kept in three lockers?

For money in saving bank

account, appellants are

entitled for succession

certificate.

For gold ornaments and cash

in three lockers, the

appellants are entitled to get

letter of administration.

B Whether the Trial Court committed

an error in dismissing the application

and whether it requires interference?

In the affirmative.

C What order ? As per final order

REASONING

Point Nos. 1 and 2:-

8] The determination of the appeal rests more on the

interpretation of legal provisions because most of the facts

are admitted. There are two sets of respondents. One set

comprises Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Out of them, the

Respondent No.1 Umeshkumar expired during the pendency

of this appeal and his son Respondent No.3 - Piyush is the

only legal representative. He had chosen to remain absent.

Whereas other set of respondent contain three banks i.e.

Respondent Nos. 4 to 6. The determination of the appeal also

involves certain issues about compliance of the procedure and

it is on the background of non-contest by any of the

respondent.

9] The undisputed facts as revealed from the record

are as follows :-

A] Death of Motilal Mahavirprasad Sharma on 16.07.2012

and death without making a Will.

B] Smt Ramadevi w/o Shri Motilal predeceased Motilal on

05.11.1987.

C] Deceased Motilal was having three sons. Original

claimant Shri Sushilkumar, respondent No.1

Umeshkumar and Respondent No.2 Sunilkumar.

D] Holding lockers by deceased Motilal in respondent Nos.

4,5 and 6 Bank.

10] Initially, Sushilkumar filed an application under

Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act and prayer was only

to issue succession certificate. His two brother’s respondent

nos.1 and 2 have not contested the proceedings. The three

banks have also not contested the proceedings (except Punjab

National Bank by filing a reply as mentioned above).

Sushilkumar filed affidavit of examination-in-chief on

06.10.2012. From the copy supplied, it is nowhere disclosed

that he was cross-examined. In addition to the relief of

succession certificate, by way of amendment, he also prayed

for grant of Letter of Administration /Heirship Certificate. He

filed additional affidavit on 11.04.2018. He was not crossexamined.

11] The Court Commissioner Advocate Rakesh

Dwivedi explained the procedure followed by him prior to

visiting the three banks for taking inventory of the contents of

the lockers. He found following articles:-

Name of the Bank Locker

Number

Description of articles

State Bank of India,

Kingsway, Nagpur.

604 Yellow metal articles and

Cash of Rs. 26,61,200/-

Punjab National Bank

Kingsway, Nagpur.

652 Cash of Rs. 17,52,600/-

Central Bank of India,

L.I.C. Square, Nagpur.

1590 Cash of Rs. 3,51,450/-

Except asking as to who has put those articles (during crossexamination

by Punjab National Bank) nothing was asked to

him. Still the valuation of Yellow Metal has not come on

record and that is why valuer Chandrakant B. Vastani was

appointed and Assistant Superintendent Prakash Somkuwar

attached to Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur is also

appointed to carry out the work. He gave report dated

02.04.2019. The details of gold articles valued by the

Jeweller Vasatani is as follows :-

A] Weight 3389 grams

B] Value Rs. 1,08,44,800/-.

ABOUT MONEY STANDING IN S.B ACCOUNT

12] No doubt it is true that the S.B. account stands in

the name of original claimant Sushil Sharma. In the main

application, it is pleaded that an amount of Rs. 19,76,034/- is

credited to this account whereas the deposit slip produced by

Sushilkumar shows an amount of Rs. 19,75,534/-. The Trial

Court has emphasised on variance in the said amount. I think

the amount mentioned in the deposit slip at Exhibit-56 ought

to have been given weightage. Furthermore, the Trial Court

has emphasised on the fact that the savings bank account

stands in the name of appellant – Sushilkumar and not in the

name of deceased Motilal Sharma. There cannot be any

dispute about the name standing in the record of State Bank

of India. However, when Sushilkumar says that money

belongs to Motilal, it means he wants money should not go

exclusively to him but his two brothers would also get the

amount. It means that he has made a statement detriment to

his interest. I find no wrong in accepting his contention.

Furthermore, Trial Court observed about non-filing of the suit

when this account is frozen by the bank. There is no need to

file a suit. If Sushilkumar succeeds in getting succession

certificate, State Bank of India is bound to act as per the

directions of the Court. Asking the party to file a suit is

nothing but prolonging the litigation which is not at all

contested.

13] So for above reasons, the Trial Court ought to

have issued succession certificate in favour of deceased

Sushilkumar. He expired after giving evidence. The certificate

could have been issued in favour of his legal representatives

which were brought on record. While rejecting the claim in

respect of the money in S.B. Account, Trial Court has taken

rigid view. Money in savings bank account belongs to the

account holder and bank holds it till it is demanded by the

account holder. It is nothing but a debt recoverable by the

account holder. The appellants are entitled to get succession

certificate in respect of this amount.

GOLD ARTICLES AND CASH AMOUNT IN LOCKERS

14] It is true that above two articles cannot be

described as debt or security as contemplated in Section 370

of the Indian Succession Act. These two articles were kept in

the lockers. Even bank is not aware about the contents of the

locker. It is within the domain of locker hirer. It will be

material to consider the relationship of the Bank and Locker

Hirer. Recently, there is occasion for Hon’ble Supreme Court

to consider the relationship in between the bank and locker

hirer in case of Amitabh Dasgupta V/s United Bank of India

reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 124 in Civil Appeal No.

3966/2010. The circular dated 04.12.2006 by Reserve Bank

of India (in the form of proposal) was referred (para no-7). It

was not finalized. Hon’ble Supreme Court [after taking over

view of the judgments given by certain High Courts and by

the National Commission] has not opined about exact

relationship in between the banker and locker hirer. Hon’ble

Supreme Court confirmed the decision of National

Commission. Limited compensation was granted to the locker

hirer in view of admission by the Banker to open the locker.

However, the issue about “liability in case of loss of contents

of the locker” was kept open to be decided by the Civil Court.

15] So the relationship cannot be considered as that

of bailor and bailee as contemplated under Section 148 of the

Indian Contract Act. Bank cannot use the contents of locker

(just like using the money deposited). Certainly, it cannot be

said that bank owes to the locker hirer the contents of the

locker. The articles are kept in the locker only for safe custody

and they cannot be said to be in the exclusive possession of

the banker. So, question arises to whom bank should return

the articles after the death of hirer and on the basis of which

documents? On this background, it will be material to

consider the provisions of the Indian Succession Act. Learned

Advocate Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari relied upon the provisions

of Section 218 of the Indian Succession Act.

16] Administration of the estate belonging to a person

who dies intestate can be granted to any person. In this case,

the deceased Motilal was a Hindu. As the Section itself says,

letter of administration can be granted if a person dies

without making a Will. High Court of Delhi in the case of Arti

Kapahi V/s State reported in 2006 SCC Online Del 408 was

pleased to observe “letter of administration can be granted

even when the Will is not annexed (para-18)”.

17] There was occasion for High Court of Madras to

consider the nature of inquiry required to be conducted by

the Court granting letter of administration. It is in the case of

Dr. R.V. Venkatesan V/s D. Jenbagalakshmi and others

reported in AIR 2012 MAD 94 . It was held as under :-

“question of title need not be enquired into,

Court has only to consider whether there is a

estate at all to be administered. It is not

necessary to decide which assets are likely to

come to the share of the petitioner”.

18] In this case, the Trial Court has only considered

the claim as to entitlement to succession certificate. There is

no finding about entitlement to letter of administration. This

is dereliction of duty. For above discussion, it can certainly be

said that deceased Motilal was having a estate in the form of

three lockers and its contents. Generally, a person opens a

locker and keep valuables in it for safe custody. So this Court

feels that a letter of administration can certainly be granted

in favour of the appellants. Because the authority needs to be

given to someone who can administer the estate. The estate

cannot remain unadministered.

19] Claimant Sushilkumar has referred about claim by

Respondent No.3 Piyush. Piyush claims that he was

nominated by deceased Motilal in respect of locker with State

Bank of India. On what basis Sushilkumar has made this

claim is not clear. Even Piyush has not come forward. Trial

Court has referred to this in Para No.31 of the impugned

order. There is no finding on this claim. Even otherwise law

on the point of nomination is clear. Nominee holds the

property on behalf of heirs. So there is no substance in the

said claim.

20] Merely because the Government has issued a