Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: In a case regarding the Indian Succession Act, 1925, a Division Bench of the Court comprising A.S. Oka and A.K. Menon, J.J. held that the production of a Succession Certificate is necessary for the transfer of credit from any deceased’s account to another person.

The bank had demanded a Succession Certificate from the petitioner when he went to the bank to transfer the credit in the deceased’s account under the will. The petitioner had contended that the Banks cannot insist on production of a Succession Certificate as the petitioner is making a claim on the basis of the registered will of the account holder and that it was not mandatory for the petitioner to obtain letters of administration on the basis of the will since the deceased was not a resident of Mumbai and the will doesn’t affect any property in Mumbai, placing reliance on the decisions of the Court in view of express provisions of Section 57 of the Succession Act.

The Court rejected the petition and held that the bank had not erred in its decision to not transfer the credit without a Succession Certificate as that serves as a valid discharge to the bank. However, it went on to observe that, in case, a competent court grants a Succession Certificate, the bank would have to follow the order and transfer the credit. [Amol Rajgonda Patil v. The Manager, Canara Bank, 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 1272, decided on 20-04-2017]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: A Bench comprising of Valmiki J. Mehta, J. dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant for revocation of the succession certificate granted to the legal heirs in a case filed by the sister of the deceased.

The appellant was the real sister of the deceased and she challenged the succession certificate granted to the daughter and the husband of the deceased, on the ground that they remained separated from the deceased before 35 years prior to her death, and the appellant is the nominee in the government records.

The Court took recourse to Section 15(1)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and affirmed the conclusion of the lower court that the respondents being the daughter and husband of the deceased, are her legal heirs, and they are entitled to the succession certificate. The Court followed the Supreme Court judgment in Sarbati Devi v. Usha Devi, (1984) 1 SCC 424 and stated that nomination is not a will in law, thus rejecting the plea of the appellant that there is a nomination in her favour in the government records. The High Court dismissed the appeal by holding that in the absence of any will of the deceased in favour of the appellant, only those persons who are the legal heirs of the deceased under the Hindu Succession Act, can inherit her properties. [Rampali v.  State Govt. of NCT of Delhi , 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7999, decided on 24-04-2017]