Allowed

Rakesh Kaushik v. Nil

Karnataka HC13 Apr 2022MFA/257/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against dismissal of petition for succession certificate. Court held appellants as only legal heirs of deceased brother. Dismissal was unjustified in absence of objections and presence of bank letter showing balance. Appeal allowed.

What did the court decide?

Miscellaneous first appeal allowed. Previous order set aside. Petition allowed. Succession certificate granted in respect of Rs.54,44,786.08.

Rakesh Kaushik Vs Nil — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶8

M.F.A.No.257/2022

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

RAKESH KAUSHIK S/O LATE DR. OM PRAKASH KAUSHIK AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.61/1, 2ND FLOOR, ANANTH NAGAR ROAD, FN FAB FURNITURE SHOP, HUSKUR GATE, ELECTRONIC CITY, PHASE-2, BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU-560 100.

¶11

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT SRI TIRU NIVAS, NO.20, 3RD FLOOR, 3RD CROSS, 2ND MAIN ROAD, LOTTE GOLLAHALLI, RMV-2 EXTENSION, NEAR DASTA NORTH AVENUE APARTMENT, BENGALURU-560094.

¶12

SMT. SANDHYA W/O RAJENDRA KUMAR VATSA, D/O LATE OM PRAKASH KAUSHIK, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO.376, 65TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK, BASHYAM CIRCLE, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560010.

¶13

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.487, 2ND FLOOR, THIMMAIAH ROAD, MANJUNATH NAGAR, 4TH MAIN ROAD,

¶14

¶15

ABOVE PARAS JEWEL, BENGALURU -560010. … APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI K.SREEDHAR, ADV.) AND:

¶17

NIL … RESPONDENT

¶18

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 384 INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.08.2021 PASSED IN P AND S.C.NO. 150/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, C/C XLIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (C.C.H. 45), DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 372 OF INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT.

¶19

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, VISHWAJITH SHETTY J. , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

This miscellaneous first appeal is filed under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short, ‘the Act’) challenging the order dated 05.08.2021 passed by the XLIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in P & SC No.150/2021.

¶22

Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are, the appellants herein had filed a petition under Section 372 of the Act with a prayer for issuing succession certificate in their favour in respect of the amount in Kotak Mahindra Bank, Malleshwaram

¶23

¶24

Branch, Bengaluru – 560 055, in Savings Bank Account No.04180010003735 with CRN No.10572066 for a sum of Rs.54,44,786.08, which belonged to their elder brother late Sudhir Kaushik.K.

¶25

The appellant no.1 is the younger brother and appellant no.2 is the younger sister of late Sudhir Kaushik who died intestate on 04.12.2020 at Bengaluru. The said Sudhir Kaushik was unmarried. The parents of the appellants and late Sudhir Kaushik are no more. The elder sister of the appellants viz., Smt. Sadhana Sharma had died on 10.10.2018, and therefore, the appellants are the only legal heirs of deceased Sudhir Kaushik who was a businessman and had a Savings Bank Account at Kotak Mahindra Bank, Malleswaram Branch, 3^rd Main, 18^th Cross, Margosa Road, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru – 560 055, bearing No.04180010003735 with CRN No.10572066, wherein a sum of Rs.54,44,786.08 was available as on the date of the death of Sudhir Kaushik. It is under these circumstances, the appellants had filed a petition for grant of succession certificate before the court below and the court below had issued public notice

¶26

¶27

which was published in ‘Hosa Digantha’, Kannada Daily Newspaper dated 12.03.2021. However, there was no objection received from anybody, and therefore, there was no contest for the prayer made by the appellants.

¶28

Before the court below, appellant no.1 had examined himself as PW-1 and got marked 11 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-11. The court below by its impugned order dated 05.08.2021 inter alia held that the appellants had failed to prove that a sum of Rs.54,44,786.08 was available in Kotak Mahindra Bank by producing necessary documents and by examining the Manager of the Bank, and accordingly, dismissed the petition. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

¶29

Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the court below has held that the appellants are the legal heirs of deceased Sudhir Kaushik and it also observed that there was no objection from anybody with regard to the prayer made by the appellants. He submits that Ex.P-8 which has been issued by the Bank clearly shows the availability of funds in the bank account of the deceased, and therefore, the court below was not

¶30

¶31

justified in dismissing the petition. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶32

We have considered the arguments addressed on behalf of the appellants and also perused the material available on record.

¶33

After the petition was filed seeking succession certificate, the court below had issued public notice through paper publication which was published in ‘Hosa Digantha’, Kannda Daily Newspaper on 12.03.2021, and admittedly, no objections were filed by anybody, and therefore, it is evident that there was no objection for the prayer made by the appellants. The appellants have produced the death certificate of the deceased as Ex.P-2 and have also produced the family tree as Ex.P-3. Exs.P4 & P-5 are the death certificates of the parents of the appellants, while Ex.P-6 is the death certificate of the elder sister of the appellants.

¶34

The appellants have stated that deceased Sudhir Kaushik was unmarried, and therefore, the material on record would go to show that the appellants are the only

¶35

¶36

legal heirs left behind by deceased Sudhir Kaushik who had died intestate.

¶37

Ex.P-8 is the letter issued by the Bank which would go to show that the credit balance available in the savings bank account bearing No.04180010003735 is Rs.54,44,786.08 as on 19.02.2021. When the appellants have produced the letter issued by the Bank vide Ex.P-8 to show that the amount of Rs.54,44,786.08 was available in the bank account of the deceased, there was no necessity for the appellants to produce the further details of the account or passbook of the account as observed by the court below. Since the original letter issued by the Bank as per Ex.P-8 was produced by the appellants, there was also no necessity for them to examine the Bank Manager.

¶38

In our considered view, since the appellants are the only legal heirs of deceased Sudhir Kaushik and since it is evident that the deceased had left behind a sum of Rs.54,44,786.08 in his savings bank account bearing No.04180010003735 of Kotak Mahindra Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru, the court below was

¶39

¶40

not justified in dismissing the petition filed by the appellants under Section 372 of the Act seeking issuance of succession certificate that too in the absence of any objections from anybody. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order:

¶41

Miscellaneous first appeal is allowed. The order dated 05.08.2021 passed by the XLIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in P & SC No.150/2021 is set aside. Consequently, the petition in P & SC No./150/2021 is allowed. The appellants are granted succession certificate in respect of a sum of Rs.54,44,786.08 lying at Kotak Mahindra Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru – 560 055, in Savings Bank Account bearing No.04180010003735 with CRN No.10572066.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

Rakesh Kaushik v. Nil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kaushik v. Nil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Swathi S M Vs Xxxxxx

Mr Sameer Hamsa Ramla Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Siddamuthamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Ajitha Bhalaji Vs Nil

Periyapatna Town Panchayath Vs Abdul Rahim @ Abdul Rehman

Smt. B. R. Ramya Vs Sri. H. C. Madhusudhan