Orissa High Court
(An Application Under Article 227 Of The ... vs The Branch Manager on 22 August, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
C.M.P. No.1369 of 2018
(An application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)
Devarakonda Leelavati and .... Petitioners
another
-versus-
The Branch Manager, Axis Bank, .... Opposite Parties
Rayagada Branch, Rayagada and
others
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Petitioners - Mr. B. Routray,
Sr. Advocate.
Mr.S.S. Rao,
Sr.Advocate.
Mr. B.K. Mohanty,
Advocate.
For Opposite Parties - Mr. A.K. Nath,
Advocate.
(for O.P. No.2)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA
Date of Hearing :03.07.2025 :: Date of Judgment :22.08.2025
A.C. Behera, J. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners
against the opposite parties praying for quashing the final order dated
07.09.2018 (Annexure-5) passed in C.M.A. No.03 of 2017 under
Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 by the learned Senior
Civil Judge, Rayagada.
2. The factual backgrounds of this CMP, which prompted the
petitioners for filing of the same is that, they (petitioners) are the
parents of their only son Deverkonda Sridhar. Their son i.e.
Deverkonda Sridhar died in a motor vehicular accident on dated
07.11.2016 leaving behind his widow wife Santoshi Rupa, his two
minor sons, namely, Deverkonda Sai Siddharth and Deverkonda Sai
Samarth @ Sairam along with the petitioners as his successors. The
deceased son of the petitioners i.e. Deverkonda Sridhar was serving in
J.K. Paper Mills as Deputy Manager. After the aforesaid motor
vehicular accidental death of Deverkonda Sridhar, his service benefits
were credited to the account of his wife i.e. Santoshi Rupa vide her
Axis Bank S/B Account No.916110052677316 of Rayagada Branch.
The insurance policy benefits of their deceased son Deverkonda
Sridhar were also credited to the said account of his wife in Axis
Bank, Rayagada Branch. Two accounts were also opened in the name
of minor sons of Deverkonda Sridhar i.e. Deverkonda Sai Siddharth
and Deverkonda Sai Samarth @ Sairam vide Account
Nos.917010028155887 & 917010028106076 respectively in the said
Axis Bank, Rayagada Branch for the credit of insurance benefits of
their deceased son. In addition to that, LIC Policy bearing
No.574356001 of their deceased son had ripened for maturity at the
time of his death. After the death of their son Deverkonda Sridhar, his
wife Santoshi Rupa and his above two minor sons i.e. Deverkonda Sai
Siddharth and Deverkonda Sai Samarth @ Sairam expired on dated
25.05.2017 committing suicide at a time in a house while they were
staying at Eluru in West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh leaving
behind the petitioners as their successors. For which, the petitioners
approached the Bank Manager of Axis Bank and the Manager of LIC
i.e. O.P. Nos.1 & 2 for disbursement of the deposited amounts and
policy benefits of Deverkonda Sridhar, Santoshi Rupa, Deverkonda
Sai Siddharth and Deverkonda Sai Samarth @ Sairam in their favour,
but the O.P. Nos.1 & 2 directed the petitioners for production of
succession certificate obtaining from the competent Court of law for
the release of the said amounts of the deceased Deverkonda Sridhar,
Santoshi Rupa, Deverkonda Sai Siddharth and Deverkonda Sai
Samarth @ Sairam in their favour. Therefore, the petitioners (husband
and wife) approached the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge,
Rayagada by filing Intestate Case No.03 of 2017 under Section 372 of
the Indian Succession Act, 1925 being the petitioners arraying the
Branch Manger of Axis Bank, Rayagada and the Branch Manager,
LIC, Rayagada as O.P. Nos.1 & 2 respectively praying for issuance of
a Succession Certificate in their favour for releasing the deposited
amounts of the aforesaid deceased persons and their policy benefits in
their favour by the O.P. Nos.1 & 2.
During the course of enquiry of CMA No.03 of 2017 by the
learned Senior Civil Judge, Rayagada, after closure of evidence from
both the sides, as per order dated 07.09.2018, on the basis of the
evidence of the O.P.W.1 (Branch Head of Axis Bank of Rayagada
Branch) and exercising power conferred under O.1 R.10(2) read with
Section 153 of the CPC, 1908, the learned Senior Civil Judge,
Rayagada directed the petitioners to implead K.V. Raman Rao
(brother of deceased Santoshi Rupa) as O.P./defendant in CMA
No.03 of 2017 making necessary amendment of the said CMA No.03
of 2017 assigning the reasons that,
"as in the evidence of O.P.W.1 (Branch Head, Axis Bank,
Rayagada), he has deposed that, one K.V. Raman Rao (brother
of the deceased Santoshi Rupa) is a claimant against the
amount in relation to which succession certificate is sought for
by the petitioners, as he (K.V. Raman Rao) has issued a letter of
claim to him (O.P.W.1) on dated 11.12.2017 addressing to the
Branch Manager, Axis Bank, Rayagada Branch vide Ext.D, for
which, the petitioners should implead him as O.P."
3. On being aggrieved with the said order dated 07.09.2018
passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rayagada in CMA No.03 of
2017 directing the petitioners for the impleadment of the brother of
the deceased Santoshi Rupa i.e. K.V. Raman Rao as one of the O.P. in
CMA No.03 of 2017 by making necessary amendment in CMA
No.03 of 2017, they (petitioners) challenged the said order dated
07.09.2018 passed in CMA No.03 of 2017 by the learned Senior Civil
Judge, Rayagada by filing this CMP under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 against the Branch Manager, Axis Bank,
Rayagada, the Branch Manager, LIC, Rayagada and the brother of
Santoshi Rupa i.e. K.V. Raman Rao as O.P. Nos.1 to 3 respectively
on the ground that,
"after closure of evidence from both the sides in CMA No.03 of
2017, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rayagada should not have
directed the petitioners for impleadment of K.V. Raman Rao as
O.P. in the CMA No.03 of 2017, as he (K.V. Raman Rao) is not
the successor of the deceased persons i.e. Deverkonda Sridhar,
Santoshi Rupa, Deverkonda Sai Siddharth and Deverkonda Sai
Samarth @ Sairam, but whereas, the petitioners are the
successors of the deceased persons as per law."
4. I have only already heard from the learned senior advocate
for the petitioners and learned counsel for O.P. No.2, as none had
participated on behalf of the O.P. Nos. 1 & 3 i.e. for Branch Manager,
Axis Bank, Rayagada and K.V. Raman Rao respectively.
5. The crux of this CMP is that,
Whether, the impugned order dated 07.09.2018 passed in CMA
No.03 of 2017 (Annexure-5) by the learned Senior Civil Judge,
Rayagada directing the petitioners for impleadment of K.V.
Raman Rao (brother of the deceased Santoshi Rupa and uncle
of the deceased Deverkonda Sai Siddharth and Deverkonda Sai
Samarth @ Sairam) as O.P. No.3 in that CMA No.03 of 2017
under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 after closure
of evidence from both the sides is sustainable under law?
6. It is the settled propositions of law that,
"scope of enquiry as per Sections 372, 373 & 375 of the Indian
Succession Act, 1925 for issuance of succession certificate in a
proceeding under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is
summary in nature. Roving enquiry is not expected.
Question of law or fact is difficult for determination or need not
to be determined in a summary proceeding.
Succession certificate can be issued to one party or other, who
is able to establish prima facie best title, after obtaining security
from him directing the contesting party to establish his title in Civil
Court.
Any decision made in a succession case cannot be treated to be
final adjudication of rights of the parties except such declaration
being final only for the purpose of the proceedings under Section
372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
For which, any decision made in a proceeding under Section
372 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of succession certificate
would not bar any party to raise same issues in a subsequent suit
and the order for issuance of succession certificate under Section
372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 will not operate as a res
judicata to a subsequent suit filed in a civil Court between the same
parties.
The enquiry under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for issuance
of succession certificate is not an adjudication of rights. Because,
the grant of succession certificate to a person does not give any
absolute right to the debt nor bar for a regular suit for adjustment
of the claims. It is not a final adjudication, but it is an authority to
release the amount, which was payable to the deceased.
Therefore, the grant of succession certificate is more or less an
interim arrangement to hold trustee, but it does not confer any right
to the property. Right is to be established in a suit in Civil Court.
So, there is a provision under Section 375 of the Indian Succession
Act, 1925 regarding the issuance of succession certificate subject to
the property securities for indemnity of person, who may be entitled
to the whole or any part of those debts or securities.
For which, any determination made in a proceeding for
granting succession certificate does not finally determine the rights
of a person to be entitled in the suit as per law."
7. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been
clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:-
(i) In a case between Madhvi Amma Bhawani Amma & Ors.
Vrs. Kunjikutty Pillai Meenakshi Pillai & Ors. reproted in 2000
(II) Civil Law Times 207 (SC), order granting succession certificate
would not operate as res judicata to suit for partition filed in Civil
Court between same parties. Any decision made therein cannot be
treated to be final adjudication of rights of parties, except such
declaration being final for purpose of these proceedings. (Para 14)
(ii) In a case between Binod Sahu and another Vrs. Smt.
Chandrama Sahu and others reported in 93 (2002) CLT 659, the
grant of a succession certificate to a person does not give him an
absolute right to the debt nor does it bar a regular suit for
adjustment of the claims of the heirs inter se. The succession
Certificate is not a final adjudication of the question as to who is the
next heir and as such entitled to the estate of the deceased. The
succession certificate is an authority to realise the amount payable
to the deceased, the certificate holder, however, has to dispose of
the amount so realised in accordance with the rights of the persons
who are entitled to it. (Para 6)
(iii) In a case between Saukat Ansari Vrs. Asrafan Nesa and
others reported in 2002 (II) OLR 291 & 2002 (4) CCC 201
(Orissa), grant of succession certificate under Sections 370 & 372
of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is more or less by way of an
interim arrangement to hold as trustee but it does not confer any
right to the property. Right is to be established in a suit in Civil
Court. Direction given that, issue of certificate is subject to property
security at par with the value of ornaments seized. Any
determination made in proceeding in grant of succession certificate
does not finally determine rights of the parties. (Paras 1 to 5)
(iv) In a case between Koili Behera Vrs. Hemaprava Behera
and others reported in I (2017) Civil Law Times 46 (Orissa),
proceeding for grant of succession certificate is summary in nature
as provided in Section 373(1)(b) of the Indian Succession Act,
1925. The scope of the proceeding is to decide the right to the
certificate. In that proceeding, Court is not called upon to
conclusively go to decide the status of the parties, but merely
decides the right to the certificate. Law provides its grant to the
person even having prima facie, the best title thereto. This is to meet
urgent necessity that, as without that some others may take undue
advantage of causing loss to the persons entitled to succeed. {Para
4(B)}
(v) In a case between Shogra Khatoon & Ors. Vrs. Shairun
Bibi and Others reported in I (2005) Civ.L.T. 51 (Jharkhand),
proceeding under Section 373 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is
a summary proceeding. No final adjudication of title involved in
any decision taken by Court. Grant of succession certificate will not
stand in way of either of parties approaching Civil Court to work
out their rights in accordance with law. (Para 4).
(vi) In a case between Murari @ Peetha Subha Rao Vrs. Tata
Rammohan Rao and another reported in 1997 (2) Civil Court
Cases 397 (Andhra Pradesh), the proceedings under Section 372 of
the Act are summary in nature and a certificate will have to be
issued to one party or the other. Roving enquiry is not expected.
Question of law or fact difficult for determination and need not to
be determined in summary proceedings. If there are intricate
questions, which cannot be gone into in a summary proceeding. The
party who has prima facie best title should be granted a certificate
and the contesting party should be directed to establish his title in a
civil Court.
8. As per the provisions of law envisaged in Section 373 of the
Indian Succession Act, 1925, after entertaining an application of the
petitioner/petitioners under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act,
1925 for issuance of succession certificate, it is the duty of the Court
to fix a day for the hearing thereof and to issue special as well as
general notice of the application by publishing the same in such a
manner, as the Court thinks fit inviting the claim or objection of
anybody to the properties in respect of which, the
petitioner/petitioners has/have sought for succession certificate for
releasing the same in his/their favour.
9. It is well evident from the impugned order dated 07.09.2018
vide Annexure-5 that, no person including K.V. Raman Rao had
come forward to claim the properties of the deceased persons in
respect of which the petitioners have prayed for issuance of
succession certificate either by appearing in the CMA No.03 of 2017
or by filing a petition for his impleadment therein as an O.P. in spite
of issuance of special and general notices as per Section 373 (1)(a) &
(b) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 by the Court inviting the
objection of any person including K.V. Raman Rao to the claim of the
petitioners in CMA No.03 of 2017.
10. Section 373(4) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 provides
that,
"When there are more applicants than one for a certificate and
when it appears to the Judge that, more than one of such
applicants are interested in the estate of the deceased, in that
situation, the Judge may, in deciding to whom the certificate is
to be granted, have regard to the extent of interest and the
fitness in other respects of the applicants."
The above Section 373(4) of the Indian Succession Act,
1925 clarifies that, other than the claimants in an application for
succession certificate can have the applicants to claim the estate of the
deceased/deceaseds in a proceeding under Section 372 of the said
Act.
So, it is forthcoming from the words used in Section 373(4)
of the Indian Succession Act that, in order to have a party in a
pending proceeding under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act,
1925 like CMA No.03 of 2017 in this matter at hand, for
impleadment of a party in a succession case before the Civil Court, an
application of an applicant is required under law.
Here in this matter hand, no application was filed by K.V.
Raman Rao in CMA No.03 of 2017 for his impleadment as a claimant
to be arrayed as a party therein.
That apart, the O.P. No.3 in this CMP i.e. K.V. Raman Rao
(whose impleadment was directed by the Court through the impugned
order vide Annexure-5) has not chosen to have his say anything in
this CMP either by filing any counter or by arguing his case through
his advocate, rather he (O.P. No.3) has not chosen to participate in the
hearing of this CMP.
11. When, the scope of enquiry under Section 372 of the Indian
Succession Act, 1925 vide CMA No.03 of 2017 (which is pending
before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rayagada for issuance of
succession certificate) is purely summary in nature and when the
same shall not conclusively decide the status of the parties, but it will
decide merely, who has right to get the succession certificate, for no
other reason, but only to meet the urgent necessities, as other may
take undue advantage causing loss to the person entitled to succeed
the estate of the deceaseds and when in spite of knowing very well
about the pendency of the CMA No.03 of 2017 on being filed by the
petitioners under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the
said K.V. Raman Rao has not chosen to make an application for his
impleadment as claimant of the estate of the deceaseds and when
roving enquiry is not excepted in the nature of a summary proceeding
like CMA No.03 of 2017 and when succession certificate can be
issued in favour of the persons entitled to the same obtaining security
from them as per the Section 375 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925
and when in spite of inviting K.V. Raman Rao (O.P. No.3) to have his
objection, if any, in this CMP filed by the petitioners, he (K.V.
Raman Rao) has not chosen to say anything and when the proceeding
under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 vide CMA
No.03 of 2017 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rayagada is at
its last stage after closure of evidence from both the sides, then at this
juncture, learned Senior Civil Judge, Rayagada should not have
passed the impugned order on dated 09.08.2017 (Annexure-5)
directing the petitioners for impleadment of K.V. Raman Rao as O.P.
in that CMA No.03 of 2017 only on the basis of the evidence of the
Branch Manager, Axis Bank, Rayagada (O.P.W.1).
12. As per the discussions and observations made above and by
applying the propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the
decisions referred to supra in Para No.7 to the impugned order dated
09.08.2017 (Annexure-5) passed in CMA No.03 of 2017 by the
learned Senior Civil Judge, Rayagada, it is held that, the impugned
order dated 09.08.2017 (Annexure-5) passed in CMA No.03 of 2017
by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rayagada cannot be sustainable
under law. For which, the same is liable to be quashed.
13. Therefore, there is merit in this CMP filed by the petitioners.
The same must succeed.
14. In result, this CMP filed by the petitioners is allowed on
contest.
The impugned order dated 09.08.2017 (Annexure-5) passed
in CMA No.03 of 2017 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rayagada
is quashed (set aside).
15. As such, this C.M.P. filed by the petitioners is disposed of
finally.
Learned Senior Civil Judge, Rayagada is directed to dispose
of the C.M.A. No.03 of 2017 pending in his Court as per law as
expeditiously as possible within a period of one month from the date
communication of this judgment giving opportunity of being heard to
the parties in that CMA No.03 of 2017.
16. Registry is directed to communicate this judgment
immediately to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rayagada in reference
to C.M.A. No.03 of 2017.
(A.C. Behera),
Judge.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
22.08.2025//Utkalika Nayak//
Junior Stenographer
Signature Not
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: UTKALIKA
NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of
Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 22-Aug-2025
15:26:17
