Kerala High Court
Gope Panikkar vs State Bank Of India on 18 May, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MAY 2021 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1943
WP(C) NO 9691 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
1. GOPE PANIKKAR, AGED 62 YEARS,
S/O.LATE SRI S.N. PANIKKAR, RESIDING AT
SAMTHRIPTHI, TC 22/263, LOTUS, GARDENS,
SASTHAMAGALAM, TRIVANDRUM 695 010
BY ADVS RAJA P.KALIYATH
RESPONDENTS:
1. STATE BANK OF INDIA
NANTHANKODE BRANCH, PB NO.6508, LMS COMPOUND,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033,
REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
2. UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT ECONOMIC
AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI REP.BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. MRS. TARA PANIKKAR
D/O.SAROJINI PANIKKAR, TC 9 926/LOTUS GARDENS,
PANIKKARS LANE, SASTHAMANGALAM POST,
TRIVANDRUM PIN 695 010
4. MRS. CHITRA PANIKKAR
W/O.MURALIDHARA B.L., 461, 1ST E CROSS,
8TH MAIN, 3RD STAGE, 4TH BLOCK, BASAVESWARA
NAGAR, BANGALORE NORTH, KARNATAKA PIN 560 079
OTHER PRESENT:
SC, SRI.JITHESH MENON
GP, SMT.VINITHA B
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.05.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.9691 of 2021
2
P.V.ASHA J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.9691 of 2021
------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of May, 2021
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P7 communication
received from the first respondent Bank according to which
the probate of will is necessary for disbursing the amount
due in the PPF account of the deceased Sister of the
petitioner as well as respondents 3 and 4.
2. The case of the petitioner is that Ms.Usha
Panikkar who is the sister of petitioner as well as
respondents 3 and 4 was having a Public Provident Fund
Account bearing No.10347456567 with the first respondent
Bank. She expired on 21.05.2017. She had executed Ext.P4
will, which was registered, bequeathing the amount
outstanding in the PPF account in favour of petitioner and
respondents 3 and 4. It is stated that she was a Spinster
and as per Ext.P3 legal heirship certificate, her mother
Smt.Sarojini Panikkar is the only legal heir. Petitioner
had approached the first respondent Bank submitting copy
W.P.(C).No.9691 of 2021
of Ext.P4 will and an affidavit Ext.P5 executed by the
mother, declaring no objection in disbursement of the
amount covered by the PPF account in accordance with the
will, requesting for disbursement of the amount due under
the PPF account. Pursuant to Ext.P6 representation, the
Bank as per Ext.P7 letter informed the petitioner that as
per the PPF Scheme 2019 and as per Rule 15 of Government
Savings Promotion General Rules 2018 probate of will or
letter of administration of his estate or a succession
certificate is necessary in a case where there is no
nomination. It is further stated that when the amount
exceed Rs.5 lakhs a succession certificate is to be
produced. It is also stated that the mere fact that the
petitioner claims right under a will does not preclude him
from getting a succession certificate.
3. Shri Jithesh Menon, learned counsel appearing for
the first respondent on instructions, submitted that the
Bank can act only in accordance with the PPF Scheme 2019
according to which, the settlement of death claims in PPF
accounts are governed by Government Savings Promotion
W.P.(C).No.9691 of 2021
General Rules 2018 and the Bank has issued the
communication in tune with Rule 15 thereof.
4. Sri. Rajan P. Kaliyath, the learned Counsel for
the petitioner points out that the issue is covered by the
judgment of this Court in John K Philip v. Treasury
Officer [2017 (4) KLT 384] and when there is a registered
will no further documents are necessary for settling the
dues in the PPF account in tune with the provisions
contained in the said will.
5. I heard the learned counsel on both sides.
6. There is no dispute with respect to the fact
that there is a registered will Ext.P4 executed by the
deceased by which the amount due under the PPF account has
been bequeathed in favour of the petitioner and the
respondents 3 and 4. Though the learned Standing Counsel
pointed out that there are other siblings for the deceased
and consent is necessary from them I find it unnecessary
as the amount due under PPF account is to be disbursed in
accordance with the provisions contained in the will
executed by the deceased, which is registered. There is no
W.P.(C).No.9691 of 2021
provision in the Indian Succession Act, which requires
probating of a will executed by a Hindu woman or man. A
succession certificate is also not necessary in the case
of debts or securities or movable properties, as held by
this Court in the judgment in John K Philip's case
(supra). At any rate it would be open to the 1st respondent
to obtain an indemnity bond from the petitioner and other
2 siblings as against any future claims that may be raised
as against the amount involved in the PPF account.
In the aforesaid circumstances there shall be a
direction to the first respondent to disburse the amount
due under the PPF account in the name of Ms.Usha Panikkar
on obtaining an indemnity bond from the petitioner and the
respondents 3 and 4, within a period of 'three weeks'
from the date of execution of the bond.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
P.V.ASHA, JUDGE
AS
W.P.(C).No.9691 of 2021
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF PAGES ONE AND TWO OF PPF
ACCOUNT NO.10347456567 WITH THE FIRST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF DEATH CERTIFICATE OF (LATE)
MS.USHA PANIKKAR.
EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF LEGAL HEIR
ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF REGISTERED WILL NO.77/3/2017
EXECUTED BY (LATE) MS.USHA PANIKKAR.
EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY
SMT.SAROJINI PANIKKAR MOTHER AND SOLE
LEGAL HEIR OF (LATE) MS.USHA PANIKKAR.
EXHIBIT P6 LETTER DATED 15.03.2021 SENT BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT
BANK REQUESTING FOR DISBURSEMENT OF
THE AMOUNT IN CREDIT IN THE PPF
ACCOUNT.
EXHIBIT P7 REPLY DATED 31.03.2021 SENT BY THE
FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
