Madras High Court
R.Radhakrishnan vs The Senior Manager on 7 March, 2023
2023/MHC/1046
C.M.A. (MD)No.802 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.03.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
C.M.A.(MD)No.802 of 2022
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.7303 of 2022
R.Radhakrishnan ...Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Senior Manager,
Central Bank of India,
No.6, Thirumukulam North Street,
Tallakulam,
Madurai-625 007.
2.R.V.N.Thamburaj ...Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 384 of the
Indian Succession Act, to set aside the judgment and decree passed in S.O.P.No.1
of 2014 on the files of the I Additional District Court, Madurai and allow the
appeal.
For Appellant : Mr. L.Jeen Felix
For R1 : Mr.R.Rajesh Saravanan
For R2 : Mr.L.George Pavi
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. (MD)No.802 of 2022
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed challenging the
judgment and decree passed by the I Additional District Court, Madurai in
S.O.P.No.1 of 2014 dated 08.11.2016.
2.The brief facts, leading to the filing of this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal, are as follows:-
(i) for the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein, as per
their rank before the Trial Court.
(ii) the petitioner was appointed as a nominee of one Mr.A.J.Lawrence
Christuraj, who committed suicide on 12.11.2013. The deceased had deposited a
sum of Rs.10,00,000/- in the respondent Bank. Since the deceased died interstate,
the petitioner being the nominee, filed an application for grant of succession
certificate in his favour. However, the learned District Judge considering the
evidence of the parties has dismissed the said application.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. (MD)No.802 of 2022
(iii)the second respondent has filed counter affidavit stating that the
deceased though died interstate, his brother and sister are very much alive and they
have not been impleaded as necessary parties. As such, the application of the
petitioner on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties is not maintainable.
(iv)to substantiate the case before the Tribunal, on the side of the
petitioner he was examined himself as P.W.1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 were marked
and on the side of the respondents R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Ex.R1 to
Ex.R4 were marked.
(v) After considering the material evidence adduced on both sides, the
learned trial Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Challenging
the same the present appeal is filed.
3.Though several grounds have been raised in the present appeal, the
main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was
taking care of the deceased till his death and also he has given some considerable
amount. Further, since the appellant has already been appointed as a nominee, he
is entitled to claim succession certificate.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. (MD)No.802 of 2022
4.The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the appellant
was appointed only as a nominee. Therefore, at the most, he will be treated only
as a trustee and he cannot seek for succession certificate in his favour, particularly
when the legal heirs of the deceased are very much alive.
5. In the light of the above submission, now the points arise for
consideration in this appeal are:
(a) Whether the appellant being a nominee is entitled to
succession certificate particularly when the other legal heirs of the
deceased are very much alive?
(b) To what other reliefs?
6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused
the entire materials placed on record.
7.The fact that the appellant was appointed as a nominee by the deceased
is not disputed. In general, the nominee was appointed to handle the amount as per
the Banking Regulation Act. It is a well settled position that the nominee is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. (MD)No.802 of 2022
always treated as trustee to receive the money left by the deceased in the bank and
hand over the same to the legal heirs of the deceased. Such being the position,
merely because the petitioner is appointed as nominee, as a matter of right he
cannot seek succession certificate.
8.It is relevant to note that Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act,
contemplates that even while filing an application for grant of succession
certificate, it is the requirement of law to mention the near relatives of the
deceased. Admittedly, as per the evidence adduced before the trial Court, it is
clearly established that R.W.2 one of the witness, is none other than the brother of
the deceased and the legal heirs of the deceased were not impleaded as party to the
proceedings initiated by the petitioner. When the legal heirs are very much alive
and not made as party to the proceedings, the very application itself is not as per
law and same deserves to be dismissed. At any event, any amount left by the
deceased will become the estate of the deceased. Such estate normally devolves
upon all the legal heirs of the deceased and not to the nominee. Such being the
position of law, as a matter of right the petitioner cannot seek succession
certificate merely on the ground that he is the nominee of the deceased. The
points are answered accordingly.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. (MD)No.802 of 2022
9.In the light of the above discussion, I do not find any infirmity or
irregularity in the order passed by the I Additional District Court. Accordingly,
this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
07.03.2023
NCC: Yes/no
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
ta
To
1.The First Additional District Court,
Madurai.
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. (MD)No.802 of 2022
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
ta
C.M.A.(MD)No.802 of 2022
07.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
