1. The Third Assistant Judge, City Civil Court Hyderabad, directed the plaintiff to comply with the objections raised by the Office by valuing the suit and paying the Court-fee under Section 24(d) of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. It is against that order this revision petition has been filed.
2. The main allegations in the plaint are that one Suguna Bai, the mother of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, being the eldest member of the family, has opened a locker in the Bank of Rajasthan Limited, Siddiamber Bazar Branch, Hyderabad, which is impleaded as 2nd defendant in the suit, the locker No. being 208. The said Suguna Bai died leaving behind the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and they are the sole heirs of Suguna Bai. When the plaintiff and the 1st defendant approached the Bank to operate the locker the Bank asked them to get a succession certificate from the competent Court and therefore, they filed the present suit for a declaration that they are entitled to operate the locker. The main point that falls for consideration in this revision petition is whether the Court below was justified in directing the plaintiff to value the suit under Section 24(d) of the AP Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.
3. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that plaintiff No. 1 is entitled to operate the Bank's locker that stood in the name of his mother, Suguna Bai. Under Section 370 of the Indian Succession Act, a succession certificate can be granted only in respect of debts and securities and not for any other kind of property. A succession certificate cannot be granted in respect of ornaments pledged by a deceased with a bank by way of security for the debt which the Bank had advanced. It is not a debt due from the Bank. Also, it cannot be granted in respect of ornaments kept in safe deposit locker in a Bank.
4. It is well settled that in order to determine the proper Court-fee payable on a plaint in a particular case, the true principle is that the plaint as a whole should be looked at and that it is the substance of the plaint and not its ostensible form which really matters. Further, nothing should be imported into the plaint which it really does not contain either actually or by necessary implication. Thus in construing the plaint the Court must take the plaint as it is and not as it ought to have been. (Vide: Kalu Ram v. Babulal (1) AIR 1932 Allahabad 485.
5. In this case, the plaintiffs have filed the suit for a declaration to allow the 1st plaintiff to operate the locker which stood in the name of their mother. By virtue of the declaration the plaintiffs want to operate the locker and also want to take possession and control of the articles that were kept in the locker. Though the relief prayed for appears only for declaration but it is not a case of a declaration simplicitor to allow the plaintiff No. 1 to operate the locker.
6. The averments in the plaint show that late Suguna Bai as head of the family took the locker and the properties belong to the joint family. When the property belongs to the joint family and in the absence of any will executed by Smt. Suguna Bai to the extent of the contents of the locker, the only remedy that is available for the plaintiffs is to file a suit for partition. This is not a case filed for partition, but it is filed for declaration. Therefore, the lower Court has rightly pointed out that Court fee has to be payable as per Section 24(d) of the AP Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.
7. In State Bank Of India… v. Netai Ch. Porel…Opposite Party.. Porel (2) AIR 1982 Calcutta 92, it is observed as follows:
“The Bank was merely a custodian of the same. In ordinary parlance debt means a sum certain due from one person called the debtor to another called the credit. In Stroud's Judicial dictionary a debt is defined as a sum payable in respect of a liquidated money demand recoverable by action. One of the essentials of a debt is an ascertained amount or readily calculable amount”.
8. Therefore, in this case, the 2nd defendant-Bank could not be said to stand in the position of a debtor nor could Smt. Suguna Bai be called a creditor in respect of the ornaments kept in the locker. That apart, the more important distinguishing point is that unlike in cases of debt, the Bank had no right of disposition of any kind in respect of those ornaments. The 2nd defendant-Bank stood in the position of a bailee or a trustee to whom though possession was entrusted, there was no intention of transferring the ownership of the ornaments. It is well settled that debt is not trust and any and every liability irrespective of its true legal character does not become a debt. Since succession certificate can be granted only in respect of debts and securities and not for any other kind of property. I am clearly of the opinion that succession certificate as required could not be granted. The parties could not approach the Court for obtaining succession certificate as the Court cannot grant such a succession certificate.
9. The Orissa High Court in Branch Manager, SBI. Puri Branch v. Satyaban Pathal (3) 1988 (2) Current Civil Cases, 764, held:
“The purpose of succession certificate is thus, to grant indemnity to the person who owe the debts or is liable on the securities to pay the debt to the person who gets the certificate or deals with the person with regard to the security.”
10. It is further held:
“Applying the said meaning to the word used in Section 370 to 381 as regards succession certificate it can safely be concluded that pledged articles are not debts and therefore, there is no scope for obtaining a succession certificate in respect of the same.”
11. In this case it is not a debt due to Smt. Suguna Bai by the Bank, nor were the ornaments pledged with the Bank. The plaintiffs sought for a declaration to operate the Bank locker and thus to have possession of the ornaments kept in the Bank locker. Therefore, the objections raised by the lower Court have to be complied with by the plaintiffs. Generally the Banks are insisting to obtain Succession Certificates by the legal heirs in the case of lockers on the death of the holder of the locker. But succession certificate cannot be granted as the locker held by the deceased cannot be treated as a debt. The Bank also is not expected to put the legal heirs in a difficult situation to spend more money in obtaining the succession certificate or some other certificate to safeguard their liability. Therefore, it is always desirable that the Bank should adopt a procedure in obtaining nomination at the time of opening of a locker by any person. In case of death of the person holding the locker, the Bank may allow the nominee to operate the locker provided an inventory of the articles kept in the locker is prepared and kept in the Bank's safe custody and also obtain a guarantee from the said nominee to produce the articles in the event of any claim by any other person. If this simple procedure is implemented it will save the parties from spending huge amounts by approaching the Courts as the Courts consistently held that no succession certificate can be granted under Section 370 of the Indian Succession Act to operate a locker as the locker cannot be treated as a debt.
12. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
13. No costs.