THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2216 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, (for short, “the Act”) is filed against the order, dated 29.08.2002, in O.P.No.85 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the petition filed under Section 372 of the Act to issue Succession Certificate in favour of the petitioners therein with regard to an amount of Rs.41,154/-, which was under fixed deposit in the name of the deceased Vinitha lying with respondent No.1 - bank and to issue Succession Certificate in favour of appellant/petitioner No.1 therein in respect of the gold ornaments and Bajaj Chetak Scooter or in alternative direct respondent No.2 to pay a sum of Rs.75,500/- being the value of the same, was allowed in part only with regard to issuance of Succession Certificate in favour of all the petitioners therein in respect of Rs.41,154/- and with regard to the issuance of Succession Certificate in favour of the appellant in respect of the movable properties, was disallowed on the ground that in respect of the movable properties Succession Certificate cannot be issued. 2. Heard. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Dina Nath v. Balkrishna[1], wherein it is held thus: “7. Having regard to the wide definition of the word debt given above it will appear that the refund of the ornaments, recovered from the person of the dead lady, became an obligation on the authorities to hand over the same or their value to the rightful claimant of the deceased. For such a liability an application for a succession certificate could be made in law and should not have been refused. The courts below in granting a certificate for the refund of the cash only and refusing to grant a succession certificate for the return of the valuables erred in putting a correct interpretation on the word ‘debt’ which has been used in Section 370 of the Indian Succession Act. It was a fit case in which a succession certificate should have been granted. The order passed by the courts below must, therefore, be modified.” 4. Even assuming that Section 370 of the Act covers issuance of a Succession Certificate in respect of movable properties, still the burden is on the appellant to show that the movable properties have been entrusted to respondent No.2 by the deceased Vinitha. With regard to the entrustment of movable property i.e., gold ornaments, Ex.A-7 is filed. Ex.A-7 does not contain the signature of respondent No.2 acknowledging the receipt of gold ornaments from the deceased or that the gold ornaments were in possession of respondent No.2. Similarly, in view of another movable property i.e., Bajaj Chetak Scooter, Ex.A-8 would go to show that respondent No.2 purchased the scooter. Similarly, there is no evidence to show that respondent No.2 purchased the same in his name from the funds given by the deceased Vinitha. Unless the appellant establishes that the movable properties for which she claims Succession Certificate are exclusively belonging to the deceased Vinitha; those movables have been entrusted to respondent No.2 and they were in existence with respondent No.2, the Succession Certificate cannot be issued in favour of her. The appellant has not established by adducing evidence that at the time when the deceased Vinitha died, these movables were available with the deceased Vinitha. Therefore, there are no grounds to set aside the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J October 04, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2216 OF 2004 Between: Smt. Raja Rani ..... APPELLANT AND M/s. Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Limited and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2216 OF 2004 October 04, 2010 [1] AIR 1963 ALLAHABAD 46 (V 50 C 19)