In a significant judgment, the Kerala High Court clarified that wills executed by Indian Christians and Muhammadans do not require probate under the amended provisions of the Indian Succession Act (Kerala Amendment). Justice C.S. Dias, delivering the verdict in W.P.(C) No. 37711 of 2024, directed banks to honor such wills without insisting on probate, provided adequate safeguards are in place.
Case Background
The petitioner, Smt. Ambily Jose, executor of a registered will (Exhibit P-3) by the late Fr. George Valiaveettil, approached the court after the Federal Bank’s Kolencherry Branch refused to release the deceased’s deposits without probate. The deceased, who passed away on July 8, 2024, had bequeathed his assets to the petitioner and other beneficiaries through the will.
Despite presenting the will and the death certificate (Exhibit P-1), the bank demanded probate as a condition for disbursing the funds, citing concerns over potential future claims. The petitioner challenged this stance, arguing it violated the Indian Succession Act as amended in Kerala.
Legal Issues and Key Provisions
The pivotal issue was whether banks could demand probate for wills executed by Indian Christians, given the Kerala-specific amendment to Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act. The amendment, effective from March 8, 1997, exempts wills made by Indian Christians and Muhammadans from the probate requirement, streamlining inheritance procedures.
Justice Dias emphasized:
“The amendment explicitly removes any bar against recognizing the rights of an executor or legatee under wills executed by Indian Christians and Muhammadans, without the need for probate.”
Court’s Findings
The court cited prior rulings, including Lilly George v. Francina James and Kurian @ Jacob v. Chellamma John, which upheld the amendment’s applicability to wills executed by Indian Christians and Muhammadans. The court noted that the amendment aimed to simplify inheritance processes for these communities and eliminate unnecessary procedural hurdles.
Addressing the bank’s apprehensions, Justice Dias observed:
“The fear of potential claims is naïve and untenable in light of established legal safeguards. Insisting on probate would render Section 213 of the Act redundant.”
To balance the bank’s concerns, the court directed the petitioner to execute an indemnity bond indemnifying the bank against any future claims.
Verdict
The High Court issued the following directives:
1. The bank’s requirement for probate was declared unwarranted and set aside.
2. The bank was instructed to release the deceased’s deposits within one month of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.
3. The petitioner was required to provide an indemnity bond as a safeguard for the bank.
Representation and Case Details
– Petitioner: Smt. Ambily Jose, represented by Advocates John Varghese and Ayisha T.S.
– Respondents: Sub Registrar and Federal Bank, represented by Advocate Leo George.
– Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 37711 of 2024.
