S.A. Kannan and S.A. Ganapathyraman vs The Chief Manager State Bank of India No. 25, Swamy Nellaiappar High Road Tirunelveli - 1

K. Ravichandra Baabu

The petitioners are aggrieved against the portion of the communication issued by the respondent in his letter dated 13.10.2007, wherein, the petitioners were directed to furnish two independent sureties for opening the locker and taking the inventory. The case of the petitioners is that their father A.S. Arunachalam hired a locker in State Bank of India Branch at No. 25, Swamy Nellaiappar High Road, Tirunelveli Town, under safe deposit locker No. A31 as early as in the year 1966. Their father passed away on 07.01.2006 leaving behind a registered Will dated 16.05.2003. As per the said Will, the petitioners alone are entitled to receive the ornaments and materials available in the locker No. A31 in the respondent Bank. Therefore, the petitioners made a representation on 11.07.2007 to the respondent Bank along with the copy of the Will, seeking permission to open the locker and to take the contents available therein. The respondent Bank through reply dated 13.10.2007, which is impugned in this Writ Petition, though permitted the petitioners to open the locker, however, imposed certain conditions that the same would be done in the presence of two officers and two independent witnesses. Apart from that, the respondent Bank also directed the petitioners to produce a letter of indemnity along with two sureties.

Aggrieved against one of the condition, viz., furnishing of the sureties, the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that insofar as the other conditions, namely, the presence of two officers and two independent witnesses at the time of opening the locker and taking the inventory are concerned, the petitioners have no grievance. Their only grievance is against the condition to furnish two sureties, which according to the petitioners, is totally unwarranted, especially, there are no rival claims in respect of the contents available in the locker.

Learned counsel for the petitioners today furnished an additional typed set of papers, showing the Death Certificate of their father late A.S. Arunchalam, indicating that he died on 07.01.2006. The Legal Heir-ship Certificate produced today also shows that the deceased had left five legal-heirs, out of whom, the petitioners are the sons and the other three persons are the mother and two daughters. Insofar as the other three legal-heirs, namely, the mother and daughters are concerned, they have also filed separate affidavit supporting the case of the petitioners by specifically stating that they have no objection for handing over the articles in the above said locker of the petitioners herein. The affidavits are filed in original are also produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners before this Court.

I have considered the claim of the petitioners and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondent.

It is seen that the respondent Bank had come forward to accept the claim of the petitioners in pursuant to the request made on 11.07.2007 and allowed them to open the locker and take the contents after the inventory. However, in order to safeguard their interests they imposed certain conditions including that the petitioners should submit a letter of indemnity along with two sureties. As the petitioners have filed the supporting affidavits of the other legal-heirs, namely, the mother and two daughters, before this Court as referred to supra, I find that there is no need to insist for furnishing two sureties as required under the impugned proceedings. On the other hand, in my considered view, it would suffice, in order to safeguard the interests of the Bank, in case of any future claims, to direct the petitioners to furnish a personal bond to the value of the articles available in the said locker. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to furnish the letter of indemnity as well as personal bonds to the value of the articles available in the said locker. The respondent is directed not to insist upon the furnishing of two sureties as required under the impugned proceedings dated 13.10.2007. It is needless to say that the petitioners should satisfy their identity before the respondent Bank official at the time of opening the locker and taking the inventory. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is ordered accordingly.

No costs.