The court granted a succession certificate to three petitioners comprising the sons of a Hindu deceased female in common form for movable properties to have effect throughout the Union of India.
Succession certificate granted for movable properties; inventory submission within 6 months; final accounts within 12 months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR PROBATE CIVIL PETITION NO. 14 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by CHAITHRA P Location: High Court of Karnataka
INDIRANAGAR II STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 038.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIVEKANAND ANTHONY BRITTO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
NIL
…RESPONDENT
THIS PROBATE CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER PART X, SECTION 372 READ WITH SECTION 47 OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925, PRAYING TO GRANT SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF THE MOVABLE PROPERTIES OF MRS.RAJALAKSHMI ALSO KNOWN AS RAJALAKSHMI VIDYANATHAN (INTESTATE AND DECEASED), IN COMMON FORM, IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS TO HAVE EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE UNION OF INDIA UNDER SECTION 372 OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 AND ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri Vivekanand Anthony Britto, learned counsel for petitioners.
Vaidyanathan in favour of the petitioners to have effect throughout the Union of India.
2.1 Mrs.Rajalakshmi also known as Rajalakshmi Vaidyanathan, who was a Hindu by religion and died intestate on 16.02.2009 at Chennai. It is the contention of the petitioners that prior to her death, she was residing in Bengaluru with petitioner No.1 which was her fixed place of abode. It is further contended that deceased Rajalakshmi was residing in Chennai for sometime. Unfortunately and unexpectedly, she died due to heart attack at Chennai. The original death certificate issued by the Department of Public Health, Corporation of Chennai, State of Tamil Nadu has been produced along with this petition.
2.2 It is stated that Mrs.Rajalakshmi also known as Rajalakshmi Vaidyanathan was married to Mr.Chelakara Vaidyanathan and he predeceased her on 27.12.1997. From their wedlock, they had three children, the petitioners herein. Mrs.Rajalakshmi also known as Rajalakshmi Vaidyanathan died intestate leaving behind the petitioners as her only surviving legal heirs, who are none other than her sons.
stands in the name of the deceased Mrs.Rajalakshmi:
b) Kothari Sugar and Chemicals Ltd.;
2.4 In view of the petitioners being the legal heirs of deceased Mrs.Rajalakshmi, they would be entitled to the assets of deceased, so also, the dividends, rights, shares and bonus shares belonging to their mother, deceased Mrs.Rajalakshmi.
2.5 It is further contended by the petitioners, pursuant to the death of their mother, they also discovered certain demat holding shares in Cholamandalam Financial Holdings Limited to the extent of 3330 shares and shares of 3330 in Tube Investment India Limited standing in the name of deceased Mrs.Rajalakshmi. It is further stated that these shares are stored in KFIN Technologies Limited in their email Ref: TIF8081/RAJESH12 dated 30th January, 2023 and also they have stated that 3330 share of Cholamandalam Financial
Holdings Limited are transferred to Investor Education and Protection Fund (IEPF) and hence, IEPF is presently holding the same.
2.6 The petitioners being the legal heirs of deceased Mrs.Rajalakshmi, they would be entitled to the assets of the deceased so also dividends, rights shares, bonus shares. It is also stated by petitioner Nos.1 and 3 are the Indian citizens, whereas petitioner No.2 being a Non-Resident of India, is a American citizen. Therefore, petitioner Nos.1 and 3 were ordered to open the Dematerialisation Account (Demat Account) in their names being resident of Bengaluru, for which, petitioner No.2 would provide NOC and further authorising his brothers to open a Demat Account in their joint names. It is also stated that petitioner Nos.1 and 3 hereby undertake and duly affirm that the proceeds from the transfer of shares and the unclaimed dividends standing in the name of deceased Mrs.Rajalakshmi will be divided equally among the three petitioners, who are the children and the legal heirs of deceased Mrs.Rajalakshmi.
NC: 2023:KHC:32346 PROB.CP No. 14 of 2023
Chennai Edition, there is no rival claims whatsoever by anyone than the petitioners, the petitioners shall be entitled for grant of Succession Certificate. Therefore, I do not find any legal impediment to grant Succession Certificate in favour of the petitioners and petitioner Nos.1 and 3 shall comply with the terms and conditions in favour of petitioner No.2 mentioned in the affidavit filed on 07.09.2023. Accordingly, I proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
CT: ABS
Sd/JUDGE
CPN
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant a succession certificate to petitioners for movable properties of the deceased intestate.
Whether petitioner No.2's NRO account and joint Demat Account arrangement satisfy requirements for grant.
Whether the filed citations establish no rival claims to the assets.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mr. Vaidyanathan Chandran
Mr. Ravi Venkatesh Nathan
Mr. V. Ramanathan
Pradeep Singh Yerur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
