# Bhardwaj and others v. Chandra Pal

- **Citation:** (2013) 2 ILRA 658
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-04-30
- **Bench:** Rajiv Sharma, Arvind Kumar Tripathi(Ii
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bhardwaj-and-others-v-chandra-pal-42619
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Indian Succession Act, 1925- Section 370
and 381-Succession certificate-petitioner's
wife-open an account under provident fund
scheme 1968-without nominee-after her
death-petitioners claimed the amount being
legal heir duly supported with affidavit with
no objection by other claimants-rejection
on lack of succession certificate-objection
that under PF scheme succession certificate
not
required-held-misconceived-Form
G
reflects
the
succession
certificate-in
absence
of
nomination.
2 All] Rameshwari Prasad Srivastava and others Vs. Chief Manager, S.B.I. and another
659
Held: Para-6
Sri S.K. Sinha, learned Counsel for the
petitioners submits that the demand of
succession certificate for settlement of PPF
account claimed by the respondent-Bank
from the petitioners who are legal heirs of
the
deceased
depositor/subscriber
is
manifestly unjust and illegal insofar as
there is no interse dispute amongst the
legal heirs of the deceased subscriber and
as such, there is no occasion to demand
succession certificate from them.

## Text

658 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
of a deed to be void of which plaintiff is not
executant/ purported to be executant, then court
fees is to be paid in accordance with Section
7(IV)(C) of Court Fees Act and not Section
7(IV)(A). The issues were decided in favour of
the plaintiff. Against the said order, defendants
petitioners filed Civil Revision No.82 of 2012,
which was dismissed on 09.11.2012, hence this
writ petition.

3. The revisional court agreed with
the petitioners that Surhid Singh (2010)
authority of the Supreme Court was not
applicable in U.P.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners
has cited an authority of the Supreme Court
delivered after the decision of the revisional
court judgment reported in Shailendra
Bhardwaj and others Vs. Chandra Pal
and others, 2013 (1) SCC 579 (delivered on
21.11.2012) in which the Supreme Court
held that its earlier authority of Suhrid
Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh
others, 2010 (12) SCC 112 was confined to
Punjab Court Fees Act, however as far as
Court Fees Act as amended by U.P. is
concerned, in a suit for declaring will and
sale deed as void resulting in cancellation
computation of court fees will be covered by
Section 7(IV)(A) and not Article 17(II) of
Court Fees Act even if no consequential
relief is claimed under Section 7(IV)(A)
amended by U.P. in 1938. Accordingly, the
view of the lower revisional court is perfectly
in accordance with law.

5. However following the judgment of
the
Supreme
Court
reported
in
Sri
Ratnavaramaraja v. Smt. Vimla , AIR
1961 SC 1299 and A. Nawab Jhon Vs. B.N.
Subrimaniyam, 2012 (117) RD 249 (SC) the
lower revisional court held that defendants
had no legal right to challenge the decision of
the trial court on court fees. Accordingly,
revision was dismissed.

6. I do not find any error in the view of
the lower revisional court. The matter of
court fees is in between the plaintiff and the
State. Defendant has go no concern with it.
The suit has been filed before Civil Judge
(S.D.) whose upper jurisdiction is unlimited.

7. The writ petition is therefore
dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED:LUCKNOW 30.04.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJIV SHARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR
TRIPATHI(II), J.

Writ Petition No. 11802(M/B) Of 2010

Rameshwari
Prasad
Srivastava
and
others

 ...Petitioners
Versus
Chief Manager, S.B.I. and another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Sushil Kumar Sinha

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G., Sri Anand Kumar Singh
Sri Sudeep Seth.

Indian Succession Act, 1925- Section 370
and 381-Succession certificate-petitioner's
wife-open an account under provident fund
scheme 1968-without nominee-after her
death-petitioners claimed the amount being
legal heir duly supported with affidavit with
no objection by other claimants-rejection
on lack of succession certificate-objection
that under PF scheme succession certificate
not
required-held-misconceived-Form
G
reflects
the
succession
certificate-in
absence
of
nomination.
2 All] Rameshwari Prasad Srivastava and others Vs. Chief Manager, S.B.I. and another
659
Held: Para-6
Sri S.K. Sinha, learned Counsel for the
petitioners submits that the demand of
succession certificate for settlement of PPF
account claimed by the respondent-Bank
from the petitioners who are legal heirs of
the
deceased
depositor/subscriber
is
manifestly unjust and illegal insofar as
there is no interse dispute amongst the
legal heirs of the deceased subscriber and
as such, there is no occasion to demand
succession certificate from them.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma, J)

1. Heard Sri S.K. Sinha, learned
Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sudeep
Seth, learned Counsel for the respondent
No.1 and perused the records.

2. Through the instant writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, petitioners have challenged the
order/direction dated 7.4.2010 passed by
the Chief Manager, State Bank of India
(respondent No.1) contained in Annexure
No.13 to the writ petition, whereby
respondent No.1 has informed petitioners
that since claim amount exceeds Rs.1 lac,
therefore, claim will be made along with
succession
certificate/letter
of
Administration.

3. Shorn off unnecessary details the
facts of the case are as under :

Smt. Lajja Srivastava had opened an
account, namely, Public Provident Fund
Scheme, 1968 [hereinafter referred to as
"PPF"], bearing No. PPF 314, without
nominating any body to receive the
amount on her death in the State Bank of
India Branch at Shikohabad, District
Mainpuri (now Ferozabad) on 7.7.1987.
On the request of Smt. Lajja Srivastava,
the said PPF account was transferred on
22.5.1995 to State Bank of India, at
Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, upon which, the
said PPF account was registered as PPF
account, bearing No. 10070430561 at
State Bank of India branch, Gomti Nagar,
Lucknow.

4. On 24.10.2007, Smt. Lajja
Srivastava expired leaving behind her
husband, who is the petitioner No.1 and
her two sons, who are the petitioner Nos.
2 and 3. After the death of Smt. Lajja
Srivastava, petitioner No.1 (Rameshwari
Prasad
Srivastava)
submitted
an
application for payment of balances in the
PPF account on 13.5.2008, to which the
Chief Manager of the State Bank of India,
vide letter dated 16.9.2008, informed the
petitioner No.1 that for settlement of the
said Public Provident Fund account in his
favour, he was required to produce
succession
certificate.
Subsequently,
petitioner No. 1 again submitted all
relevant
documents
along
with
a
photocopy of the WILL dated 20.6.2007
executed
by
Smt.
Lajja
Srivastava
(deceased subscriber of the said PPF
account) vide letter dated 25.7.2009 for
settlement of the PPF account claimed in
his favour but again the Bank required
Succession Certificate as a necessary
precondition for processing the said claim
as desired. Thereafter, on taking legal
advise, the petitioner No.1 has again
submitted a fresh application dated
18.12.2009 along with claim Form-G
dated 17.12.2009 for withdrawal by legal
heirs under the Public Provident Fund
Scheme, 1968 and also an affidavit dated
17.12.2009 in support thereof along with
four annexures i.e. a photocopy of the
Death
Certificate
of
the
deceased
subscriber attested by Notary Public,
photocopy of disclaimer granted by the
two sons of the deceased subscriber
attested
by
the
Notary
Public,
a
photocopy of subscriber's Identity card
660 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
issued by the Election Commission of
India attested by Notary Public and a
photo copy of the pass book of the said
Public Provident Fund Account No.
10070430561 and its relevant contents
including entries attested by the Notary
Public but again Chief Manager, vide
letter
dated
7.4.2010
advised
the
petitioner No.1 to produce succession
certificate/letter of administration in order
to settle the said PPF claim.

5. Hence the instant writ petition.

6. Sri S.K. Sinha, learned Counsel for
the petitioners submits that the demand of
succession certificate for settlement of PPF
account claimed by the respondent-Bank
from the petitioners who are legal heirs of the
deceased depositor/subscriber is manifestly
unjust and illegal insofar as there is no interse
dispute amongst the legal heirs of the
deceased subscriber and as such, there is no
occasion to demand succession certificate
from them.

7. Elaborating his submission, Sri
Sinha submits that in Section 8 of the Act,
it was not provided that claimants, other
than depositor/subscriber shall invariably
have to produce succession certificate.
Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it
can be assumed that in compliance of
Clause-10 of the Schedule to the Act, the
Scheme cannot be implemented without
the production of succession certificate.
He submits that the production of
succession
certificate
is
virtually
prohibited by Section 3 (3) of the Act.
The claim under the Public Provident
Fund Act and the Public Provident Fund
Scheme is a statutory liability and the
amount has to be paid in terms of the said
scheme i.e. the Public Provident Fund
Act, 1968.

8. While placing reliance upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in Bimal
Chandra Banerjee V. State of Madhya
Pradesh etc.: AIR 1971 SC 517,
Chandra Kumar Sah and another V.
The District Judge and others : AIR
1976 Allahabad 328 and Narain Sarup V.
Daya Shanker : AIR 1938 Allahabad 256,
Sri Sinha submits that a rule making
authority has no plenary power and
further the Rules are to be confined to the
same field of operation as that area
marked out by the Act itself. Thus, the
plea of the respondent-bank that under
Section 370 and 381 of the Indian
Succession Act, 1925, the grant of
succession
certificate
afford
full
indemnity
to
the
bank
is
wholly
misconceived.

9. Sri Sinha has also contended that
no provision of the Act, leave along the
aforesaid ones afford any indemnity
whatsoever to the respondent No.1-bank
as the application and operation of the
said Indian Succession Act, 1925 is
expressly precluded by the law of the
Public Provident Funds Act, 1968 vide
Section 3 (3) and that also the grant of
succession certificate does not establish
the character of the guarantee as an heir
which is a necessary precondition to be
fulfilled by the claimant under the Public
Provident Fund Act, 1968 before making
a valid claim, which is specifically
mandated under Section 8 (3) of the said
Act. He submits that the succession
certificate
merely
establishes
the
representative character of the guarantee
and nothing more is an established and
incontrovertible fact. Even in cases where
the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is
applicable, or operative the grant of
succession
is
not
necessarily
and
essentially final which can be challenged
2 All] Rameshwari Prasad Srivastava and others Vs. Chief Manager, S.B.I. and another
661
and can be revoked under Section 383 on
the ground given in sub-clause (c)
amongst others. He submits that towards
security as is also required from the
guarantee of succession certificate, for the
purpose
and
under
circumstances,
mentioned in Section 375 (1) of the
Indian
Succession
Act,
1925,
the
petitioner
No.1
has
already
furnished/provided as demanded earlier
by respondent No.1-Bank i.e. two sureties
adequately covering the amount in
question in the said Public Provident
Funds Account of the deceased subscriber
sought to be release along with letter of
indemnity to the full satisfaction of the
respondent No.1-Bank and competent
enough to indemnify it.

10. Refuting the submissions
advanced
by
the
Counsel
for
the
petitioner, Sri Sudeep Seth, learned
Counsel for the respondent-Bank submits
that Smt. Lajja Srivastava, wife of
petitioner No.1 and mother of petitioners
Nos. 2 and 3, maintained a PPF account in
State Bank of India Branch, Gomti Nagar,
Lucknow. The said PPF account did not
carry any nomination. On 24.10.2007,
Smt. Lajja Srivastava expired without
making any nomination in the said PPF
account. He further submits that petitioner
No.1 submitted a claim dated 13.5.2008
for payment of the amount in the PPF
account of Smt. Lajja Srivastava but in
paragraph 3 of the claim, the petitioner
No.1 has put a cross in respect of
succession certificate i.e. lodging the
claim without annexing the succession
certificate. Accordingly, the bank rejected
the claim of the petitioner No.1 vide order
dated 16.9.2008 on the premise that the
succession certificate was not enclosed
along with the application. Thereafter, the
petitioner submitted another claim but
again the succession certificate was not
annexed and as such, vide letter dated
1.8.2009, the Bank apprised the petitioner
No.1 that for operation of the amount,
nomination
or
grant
of
succession
certificate are necessary concomitant and
as such, the Bank asked the petitioner
No.1 to submit succession certificate for
operation of the account/settlement of the
claim. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted
another application dated 18.12.2009
submitting his claim under Form -G for
withdrawal of the amount. However, in
the said claim Form-G clause relating to
succession certificate has been struck
down by the petitioner No.1 and he did
not submit the succession certificate.

11. Sri Seth further submits that
petitioner has also sought information
under the Right to Information Act, 2005,
whereupon it was apprised by the Bank
vide covering letter dated 11.3.2010 that
as per PPF Scheme, 1968 and Form-G, if
the amount exceeds Rs.1 lac, Form-G
envisaged
production
of
succession
certificate for payment of PPF account
where there is no nomination. Thus, there
is no infirmity in the order dated 7.4.2010
passed by the Bank.

12. Sri Seth further submits that
petitioners have not challenged the orders
dated 16.9.2008 and 1.8.2009 passed by
the Bank rejecting the claim of the
petitioners and as such, no effective relief
can be granted to the petitioners. He
further submits that under Sections 370
and 381 of the Indian Succession Act,
1925, the grant of succession certificate
afford full indemnity to the Bank as
regards payment made or dealings had in
good faith in respect of such debts or
securities to or with the person to whim
the certificate is granted. Accordingly, the
662 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
succession certificate is sought by the
Bank.

13. We have heard learned Counsel
for the parties and perused the record.

14. It is not in dispute that Smt.
Lajja Srivastava was the subscriber of
PPF Account No. 10070430561. In the
said PPF account, no nomination was
made by the subscriber. After the death of
Smt. Lajja Srivastava, petitioner No.1,
who is the husband of Smt. Lajja
Srivastava,
moved
an
application
claiming the amount of PPF, which was
rejected by the bank by saying that until
and unless succession certificate is not
produced by the petitioners, amount of
PPF cannot be disbursed as the claimed
amount is above one lac.

15. Under Clause 12 of the
Provident Fund Scheme, 1968, where
there is no nomination enforce at the time
of death of the subscriber, the amount
standing to the credit of the deceased after
making adjustment, shall be repaid by the
accounts office to the legal heirs of the
deceased on receipt of application in
Form-G. It is also provided that the
balance up to Rs.1 lac may be paid to the
legal heirs on production of letter of
indemnity; and affidavit; a letter of
disclaimer of affidavit; and certificate of
death of subscriber, on stamp paper in the
forms as enclosure to Form-G.

16. On perusal of the Form G, it
reflects that the succession certificate/letter of
administration with attested copy of the
probated Will of the deceased subscriber
issued by the competent Court is required to
be annexed along with the application for
withdrawal. In the bottom of Form-G, it has
been mentioned that succession certificate
clause be struck of, if there is a valid
nomination. Thus, it is clear that in the
absence of nomination, the succession
certificate is required.

17. Admittedly, in the said PPF
account, there is no nominee and the
amount of PPF is more than one lac and
as
such,
requiring
the
succession
certificate from the petitioners by the
Bank in view of the provisions, referred to
above,
is
logical
and
not
illegal.
Furthermore, amendment in paragraph 1
as per Notification dated 23.6.1986 has no
help to the petitioner since the balance
amount is more than 1 lacks insofar as the
current account balance of PPF account of
Late Smt. Lajja Srivastava as on 2.3.2012
is Rs.9,12,870/- as informed by the Bank.

18. Even otherwise, during the
course of arguments, learned Counsel for
the
petitioners
have
raised
certain
objection on the clause of the Act but on
perusal of the reliefs claimed by the
petitioners in the instant writ petition,
petitioners have not challenged any
clause/section/rules of the Act. Therefore,
the judgments, which have been relied
upon by the Counsel for the petitioners,
are not applicable in the facts and
circumstances of the case.

19. For the above reasons, we are
not inclined to interfere under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.

20. The writ petition is, therefore,
dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.04.2013.

BEFORE