Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 350 (AP)

B. N. Madhukar Rao v. Reserve Bank of India

2011-04-18

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

body2011
Judgment : At the Interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. In his affidavit, the petitioner has averred as under: The maternal aunt of the petitioner by name Smt. B. Samrajya Lakshmi, invested an amount of Rs.61 lakhs under Government of India 7% Savings Bonds 2002 bearing Bond Ledger Account No. RBIHDBL 002317 with Reserve Bank of India on 9-12-2002. The due date of repayment of the amount covered under the said bond is 9-12-2008. She invested another sum of Rs.10 lakhs on 4-1-2003 in the above said bonds bearing Bond Ledger Account No. RBIHDBL 002317. The due date of repayment of the amount covered by the said bond is 4-1-2009. She also invested an amount of Rs.29 lakhs under Government of India 6.5% Savings Bonds 2003 bearing Bond Ledger Account No. RBIHDBL 002317 and the due date of repayment of the said amount is 24-9-2008. While some movable and immovable properties were bequeathed by Smt. B. Samrajya Lakshmi in favour of the petitioner and his wife, the savings bonds and other F.D. Rs. were exclusively bequeathed in favour of the petitioner and that the Will was registered as document No.62/2008 in the office of the District Registrar, Hyderabad. The petitioner’s maternal aunt died issueless on 3-6-2008. After obtaining death certificate from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation on 9-6-2008, the petitioner made an application for payment of F.D.R. amounts which were deposited by his maternal aunt in the Corporation Bank, Hyderguda and that the said amounts were paid to him by the said Bank. The petitioner sent representation to the respondents for payment of the matured amount under the Savings Bonds and the respondents in turn issued letter No. PDO (Hyd) RFB/644/2,16,009.2008-2009, dated 24-9-2008 requiring the petitioner to obtain and produce probate of Will dated 21-5-2008 to enable them to process his claim under the Government of India Savings Bonds. This communication is questioned in this Writ Petition by the petitioner. This communication is questioned in this Writ Petition by the petitioner. At the hearing, Sri Ravi Kondaveeti, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no legal requirement of obtaining probate of Will by the petitioner as such a necessity arises only in cases of the Wills executed on or after 1-9-1870 within the territories which at the said date were subject to the jurisdiction of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal or within the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Courts of Judicature at Madras and Bombay. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of this court in A.S. Murthy Vs. D.V.S.S. Murthy 1979 ALT 347 (DB) and a Judgement of a learned single Judge of this court in Gangavath Lalu Vs. Gangavathi Tulsi 2001(2) ALD 379 . Sri Venkat Raju, learned Standing Counsel for the Government of India, however placed reliance on Section 7 of the Government Securities Act, 2006 and submitted that as the petitioner has not obtained probate of Will or a succession certificate, he is not entitled to claim the amounts under the bonds which constitute ‘Government security’ within the meaning of the said Act. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. In A.S. Murthy (1 supra), the question arose was whether without obtaining the probate of a Will executed by the first plaintiff, the second plaintiff is entitled to continue the suit after the death of the first plaintiff. While holding the issue in favour of the surviving plaintiff, the Division Bench of this Court considered Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and held as under : “It would be seen that S.213 prohibits among others any legatee from establishing in any court of Justice, any right claimed under a will without obtaining a probate of the will or letters of administration. Sub-section (2) of S.213 excludes certain wills from the application of sub-section (1) of S.213. So far as the wills made by Mohammadans are concerned S.213(1) does not apply at all. With respect to wills made by Hindus, S.213 (1) has only a limited application. Wills made by a Hindu to which the prohibition under S.213(1) is applicable are those classes of wills which are specified in classes (a) and (b) of S.57 of the Succession Act. With respect to wills made by Hindus, S.213 (1) has only a limited application. Wills made by a Hindu to which the prohibition under S.213(1) is applicable are those classes of wills which are specified in classes (a) and (b) of S.57 of the Succession Act. Clauses (a) and (b) of S.57 with which alone we are concerned read as follows: “57. Application of certain provisions of Part to a classes of wills made by Hindus, etc. – The provisions of this Part which are out in Schedule III shall, subject to the restrictions and modifications specified therein apply – (a) to all wills and codicils made by any Hindu, Budhist, Sikh or Jain on or after the first day of September, 1870, within the territories which at the said date were subject to the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal or within local limits of the ordinary original Civil jurisdiction of the High Courts of Judicature at Madras and Bombay; and (b) to all such wills and codicils made outside these territories and limits so far as relates to immovable property situate within these territories or limits.” A reading of that clause makes it clear that the prohibition contained in S.213(1) applies to wills by Hindus on or after 1st day of September 1870 within the territories which at the said date were subject to the Jurisdiction of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal or within the local limits of the ordinary Civil Jurisdiction of the High Courts of Judicature at Madras and Bombay.” In Gangavath Lalu (2-supra), the learned single Judge while following the said Division Bench Judgement held at para-13 as under : “A plain reading of Section 213(2) and 57 of the Act would make it clear that whatever prohibition contained in sub-section (1) of Section 213 has no application in respect of wills executed by Hindus within the State of Andhra Pradesh in respect of immovable properties situated within the territorial limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is not necessary to obtain probate of a will or letters of administration. It is not necessary to obtain probate of a will or letters of administration. The wills upon which reliance is sought to be placed can always be permitted to be proved in any civil proceeding.” As regards the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the Government Securities Act 2006 envisages production of such a probate, having carefully considered the provisions of Section 7 of the said Act, I do not find any merit therein. Under the said provision, in the absence of a nomination in respect of a Government security, the executors or administrators of the deceased sole holder or all the deceased joint holders, as the case may be, or the holder of a succession certificate issued under Part X of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 shall be the only person who may be recognized by the Bank as having any title to the Government security. Under the said provision, the right of the executor is recognized. Section 2(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 defines ‘executor’ as a person to whom the execution of the last will of a deceased person is, by the testator’s appointment, confided. This provision does not make any further requirement of obtaining a probate of the will for its execution. In the absence of any such statutory requirement and in the face of the law crystallized by the decisions referred to above, the insistence on production by the petitioner of the probate of will for payment of the amounts due under the Government securities, cannot be sustained in law. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed. A mandamus shall issue to the respondents to consider the claims of the petitioner for payment under the Government securities without insisting on furnishing of probate of the registered will executed in favour of the petitioner.