RANCHHODDAS GOVINDDAS BANATWALA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The interesting question which arises in this petition is whether movable property other than a liquidated sum of money is a debt as contemplated by Part X of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 , so as to enable the Court to issue a succession certificate in respect thereof.

(2.) The facts which have given rise to this question are that a Hindu lady named Taraben alias Tarabai Govinddas Banatwala died intestate at Bombay on October 28, 1963 leaving her surviving as her only heirs and next of kin according to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, by which she was governed, her husband Govinddas and three sons, namely, the petitioner, Ramesh and Mahesh. On February 9, 1966 Govinddas died intestate leaving him surviving as his only heirs and next of kin according to the Hindu Succession Act his three sons abovenamed. The petitioner applied for and obtained from this Court letters of administration to the property and credits of the said Govinddas on November 29, 1968 in Petition No. 333 of 1968. By reason of the death of Govinddas the only persons now entitled to the estate of the deceased Tarabai are her three sons. Amongst the property left by the deceased are five shares of the Atul Products Limited, Ahmedabad, and the right to obtain one more share which was offered to her shortly before her death and was allotted in her name on February 25, 1965. On an application being made to the said company for transfer of the said six shares to the names of the heirs of the deceased, the said company by its letter dated March 20, 1972 expressed its inability to do so unless a certified copy of the succession certificate or letters of administration or probate was submitted to it for its office records. Further, during her lifetime the deceased Tarabai pledged one multiple gold necklace and two gold bangles, in all weighing about fifty tolas, with the State Bank of India, Girgaum Branch, Bombay, as security for a demantl loan of Rs. 3,000. After the death of the deceased, on August 2, 1966 the petitioner paid off to the said bank the full amount of the said loan along with the interest accrued due thereon. The said bank, however, informed the petitioner that the gold ornaments could not be returned to him unless he obtained representation either by way of letters of administration or a succession certificate to the estate of the deceased.

(3.) On January 6, 1975 the petitioner filed this petition for obtaining a succession certificate in respect of the said gold ornaments and the said six shares of the Atul Products Limited and the uncashed dividends on the said shares. To the said petition he has annexed letters of consent given by his two brothers giving their consent to the succession certificate being granted to the petitioner. There is no dispute that the petitioner is entitled to a succession certificate in respect of the said shares and the uncashed dividends thereon. The question which arises is with reference to the granting of the succession certificate in respect of the said gold ornaments.