VIJAYENDRAN. T. Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) Petitioner is the sole beneficiary as per the Ext.P1 Will bearing No18/2021 Sub Registrar's Office, Ottasekharamangalam executed by one Achuthananda Swami, S/o Raman, resident of Thiruvananthapuram. By Ext.P1 Will the executor has bequeathed certain amounts which he has deposited in Palayam Branch of Kerala Bank, Poojappura Branch of Mudavanmugal Service Cooperative Bank, Poojappura Branch of State of India, Policy No.713918368 of LIC of India and the deposits in Poojappura Post Office. While so on 29/10/2021 the said Achuthananda Swami, testator of the Will, died while he was residing at the Karthika Tirunal Lekshmy Bai Old Age Home, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram and the petitioner was the person who was looking after the entire affairs of the executant while he was an inmate in the old age home. It is further submitted that the executant died without any children or other legal heirs to inherit his estates. After the death of Achuthanada Swami Ext.P3 application for settlement of the account was submitted before the 2nd respondent. Along with Ext.P3 application, the petitioner has produced the death certificate of the depositor, true copy of Ext.P1 Will, letter of indemnity by the beneficiary, affidavit of the beneficiary, letter of disclaimer on affidavit and the relevant passbooks. Ext.P4 is the copy of the indemnity letter dtd. 22/4/2022 whereas Ext.P5 is the affidavit sworn to by the petitioner intimating that he is the sole beneficiary under Ext.P1 Will and Ext.P6 is the copy of the letter of disclaimer in Form No.14 filed before the 2 nd respondent. Ext.P7 is the copy of the passbook of the Account No.4237206686 of the Post Office, Poojappura. While so by Ext.P9 communication the request of the petitioner for settling the account in Post Office was rejected by the 1st respondent intimating that the petitioner has to probate the Will to settle the claim raised by him. The petitioner has also submitted similar application before the 4th respondent which was also rejected as per Ext.P10 order stating the very same reason that the Will is to be probated for settling the death claim of deceased Achuthananda Swami. Petitioner submits that the stand taken by the respondents in Exts.P9 and P10 is per se illegal and is in violation of the provisions of Ss. 57 and 213 of the Indian Succession Act. Petitioner relies on the recent judgment of this Court in Dr.P.C.Beenakumari v. State of Kerala and others, 2021 SCC Online Ker.12730. The operative portion of the said judgment reads as follows:

(3.) A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 and 2 wherein it is admitted that the executant of Ext.P1 Will was having a savings account in the post office and no nomination is seen registered in the said account. Even though in the counter affidavit it is admitted that there is no requirement to probate of the Will executed by a hindu in the State of Kerala as per the combined reading of Ss. 57 and 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, since large amount is required to be paid to the beneficiary under a Will which has not gone through the process of probate the Will should be subject to legal scrutiny and if the validity of the Will is in question, the remedy available to the petitioner is to obtain probate or declaration as to the validity. It is contended that the relation between the account holder and the petitioner is not known. It is also contended that the judgment in Dr.P.C.Beenakumari's case supra is not applicable in the facts of the present case inasmuch as the said writ petition was filed by the daughter of the younger sister of the depositor