RADHAKRISHNA RAO, J.
( 1 ) THE Third Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, directed the plaintiff to
comply with the objections raised by he office by valuing the suit and paying the
court-fee under section 24 (d) of the Andhra Pradesh Court-fees and Suits Valuation
Act, 1956. 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 first defendant, being the eldest member of the family, has opened
a locker in the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. , Siddiamber Bazar Branch, Hyderabad, which
is impleaded as the second defendant in the suit, the locker No. being 208. The said
Suguna Bai side leaving behind the plaintiff and the first defendant and they are the
sole heirs of Sugana Ba. When the plaintiff and the first defendant approached the
bank to operate the locker, the bank asked them to get a succession certificate from
the competent court and, therefore, that filed the present suit for a declaration that
they are entitled to operate the locker.
( 3 ) 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 Andhra Pradesh Court fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956.
( 4 ) THE plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration that plaintiff No. 1 is entitled to
operate the bank's locker that stood in the name of his mother, Suguna Ba. Under
section 370 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, 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 a deposit locker in a bank.
( 5 ) 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 construcing the
plaint, the court must take the plaint as it is and not as it ought to have been (vide
Kalu Ram v. Babu Lal. AIR 1932 All 485 ).
( 6 ) IN this case, the plaintiffs have filed the suit for a declaration to allow the first
plaintiff to operate the locker which stood in the name of their mother. By virtue of
the declaration, the plaintiff wan 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 a declaration but it is not a case of a declaration
simpliciter to allow plaintiff No. 1 to operate the locker.
( 7 ) THE averments in the plaint show that late Suguna Bai, as head of the family,
took the locker and the properties belonging to the point family. When the property
belongs to the joint family and, in the absence of any will executed by Smt. Sugana
Bai to the extent of the contends of the locker, the only remedy that is available for
the plaintiff is to file a suit for partition. This is not a case filed for partition, but it is
filed for a declaration. Therefore, the lower court has rightly pointed out that court fee
was payable as per section 24 (d) of the Andhra Pradesh Court-fees and Suits
Valuation Act.
( 8 ) State Bank Of India v. Netai Ch. Porel Opposite Party.. Porel, AIR 1982 Cal 92, it is observed as
follows (at page 94) :"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 creditor. 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. "
( 9 ) THEREFORE, in this case, the second 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 second 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 a debt is not a trust and any and every liability irrespective 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 a succession certificate as required could
not be granted. The parties could not approach the court for obtaining a succession
certificate as the court cannot grant such a succession certificate.
( 10 ) THE Orissa High Court, in State Bank of India v. Satyaban Pathal [1988] 2
Curr CC 764 ; [1991] 71 Comp Cas 251, held (at page 253) :"the purposes of a
succession certificate is, thus, to grant indemnity to the person who owes 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. "
( 11 ) IT is further held (at page 255) :"applying the said meaning to the word used
in sections 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. "
( 12 ) 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.
( 13 ) GENERALLY, banks are insisting on obtaining a succession certificate 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 a 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 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 courts have consistently held that no
succession certificate can be granted under section 370 of the Indian Succession
Act, 1925, to operate a locker as the locker cannot be treated as a debt.
( 14 ) THE revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.