KRISHNAMMAL Vs. RLAKSHMI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the respondent in O.P. No. 142 of 1948, against an order of Subba Rao, J., granting a succession certificate to the petitioner in the original petition in respect of the Government securities, more particularly specified in the schedule attached to the petition.

(2.) The securities originally stood registered in the name of one Subramania Ayyar. He died on the nth December, 1911, leaving behind him his father, Anantarama Iyer, his widow Ammani Ammal, and two daughters, Krishnammal and Rajammal. The respondent in. this appeal, who was the petitioner in the original petition is Lakshmi Ammal, the daughter of Rajammal. On the 26 September, 1912, Anantarama Iyer executed a deed of settlement whereunder he provided that after his death his daughter-in-law, Ammani Ammal should enjoy the securities for her life and after her death they should be possessed and enjoyed in equal half shares by his grand-daughters, Krishnammal and Rajammal for life. On the death of any of the said granddaughters, it was provided by the deed that the properties possessed and enjoyed by each granddaughter should devolve upon her male issue absolutely, if any, then living, and in default of such male issue the female issue should take absolutely. After the death of Subramania Aiyar, Ammani Ammal applied for a succession certificate in respect of these securities, and with the consent of Anantarama Iyer a succession certificate was issued in her favour, the power being limited to realisation of interest on the securities. There is an endorsement to this effect on the Government promissory notes: Ammani Ammal died on the 28 September, 1944. Rajammal predeceased Ammani Ammal and left behind her her only daughter, Lakshmi Ammal, the respondent in the appeal. Busing her claim on the settlement deed of Anantarama Aiyar the respondent claimed that she was entitled to one half of the total value of the Government securities mentioned in the schedule and also to receive her share of the interest payable thereon. In paragraph 3 of the petition the respondent alleged that the Government of India bonds and securities were held by the Reserve Bank of India (Public Debt Office), Madras Branch, and that she was informed by the Reserve Bank of India, Madras Branch, in their communication dated 19 February, 1948, that she should obtain from the High Court of Madras a succession certificate in support of her claim to deal with the securities and forward the same to them. In paragraph 9 of the petition she however alleged that the original bonds were in the custody of Krishnammal, daughter of Subramania Aiyar. In paragraph 4 she disclosed the relationship between the various persons and stated that Krishnammal alone was alive and that she resided at South Street, Fort, Trivandrum. She stated in the petition the substance of the settlement deed and the facts entitling her to the certificate claimed by her.

(3.) Krishnammal filed a counter affidavit formulating her objections to the grant of a succession certificate in favour of Lakshmi Ammal, chief among which were that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application, and that as she was not the heir of the deceased Subramania Aiyar, in whose name the securities stood she was not entitled to the grant of succession certificate under the provisions of the Succession Act. She put the petitioner to strict proof of the allegation contained in paragraph 3 of the petition that the securities in question were held by the Reserve Bank of India (Public Debt Office), Madras and also disputed the correctness of the construction that was put upon the settlement deed of 28 February, 1912, by Lakshmi Ammal, the petitioner. To meet some of the all gations in the counter affidavit filed by Krishnammal, Lakshmi Ammal in her turn filed a reply affidavit.