The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ordered the State Bank of India to release a woman’s share of foreign currency deposits left by her deceased non-resident Indian brother, ruling that financial institutions cannot insist on probate orders when no rival claims exist.
Justice Ravi Cheemalapati delivered the ruling on September 3 in a petition filed by Sekharamantri Prameela against the bank and the state government. The bench instructed the public sector lender to hand over her entitled portion of the Foreign Currency Non-Resident accounts and related investments once she furnishes an indemnity bond, taking into account her advanced age and the absence of any conflicting inheritance disputes.
Absence of Rival Claims After 23 Years
The court underscored that nearly 23 years had passed since the account holder died in 2003, during which neither the other beneficiaries nor the deceased man’s wife and son lodged any objection to the division of the estate. While the widow and son chose not to participate in the proceedings, one of the administrators had formally written to the bank endorsing the release of the petitioner’s portion.
Addressing the bank’s refusal to disburse the funds without court-issued probate, the bench clarified that obtaining probate was never compulsory under state law in Andhra Pradesh. The court further pointed out that statutory amendments passed by Parliament in 2025 eliminated the probate mandate across the country, leaving the lender with no legal basis to demand such certification from the petitioner.
Two Decades of Procedural Deadlock
The dispute originated from a Will executed in 1995 by the petitioner’s late brother. The document allocated two-thirds of his total assets to his son, while the remaining one-third was divided equally among his four sisters.
Following the brother’s death, one sister approached a competent court, verified the Will by examining an attesting witness, and secured a succession certificate. On that basis, the bank paid out her Rs 19 lakh share in 2007.
However, when Prameela sought her equal portion, the bank declined to honour the request, demanding that she produce either an independent probate order or an additional succession certificate. Her subsequent petition for a succession certificate faced objections from the bank on the grounds that the funds were governed by testamentary disposition. Efforts to secure redress through the district consumer forum and the banking ombudsman proved unsuccessful, prompting the high court petition.
Court Rejects Bank’s Objections
During the hearing, petitioner’s counsel Sarang Afzulpurkar contended that the bank acted arbitrarily by continuing to block the funds despite possessing valid proof of the Will from the earlier court proceedings and receiving written consent from an estate administrator. Counsel argued that withholding the money despite numerous representations infringed upon constitutional protections.
Opposing the plea, bank counsel K B Ramanna Dora maintained that the institution’s insistence on a probate decree or succession certificate was a necessary safeguard before releasing estate assets.
The bench dismissed the bank’s position, noting that the authenticity of the 1995 Will had already been established before a competent court during the 2007 payout to the other sibling. Under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, succession certificates are barred only where probate or letters of administration are legally compulsory. Because probate was not required in Andhra Pradesh, and has since been removed nationwide, the court held that the bank could not impose such hurdles on the claimant.
