IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE AT: KHAMMAM
Dated this the 9th day of April, 2026
Present: Smt.Vempati Aparna II Addl.District Judge, Khammam.
A.S.No.38 of 2025
Between:- 1Parupalli Anuradha W/o:Venkateswarlu, D/o:Nunna Nageswar Rao, Age:63 years, Occ:House wife, R/o:H.No.14-3-90, Jayanagar Colony, Ballepally, Khammam
2.Singu Jyothi W/o:Late S.Chiranjeevi, D/o:Late Nunna Nageswara Rao, Age:62 years, Occ:Branch Postmaster, R/o:Kotala Village, Chandragiri Mandal, Chittoor District.
3.Nunna Sundar Rao, S/o:Late Nunna Koteswar rao, Age:70 years, Occ:Rtd Bank Employee, R/o:H.No.7-2-108, Dwarakanagar, Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam
4.Nunna Lalitha W/o:late Nunna Krishnaiah, Age:59 years, occ: House wife, R/o:H.No.3-4-56, Gollagudem colony, Rajupeta, Mulakalapalli Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.
5.Nunna Raghunadh, S/o:late Nunna Krishnaiah, Age:42 years, occ: Pvt bank Employee, R/o:Flat No.5, Sai Srinithya Apartment, VDO’s Colony, Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam
6.Nunna Bhanu Kiran, S/o:Nunna Krishnaiah, Age:39 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o:H.No.3-456, Gollagudem Colony, Rajupeta, Mulakalapalli Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.
7. Nunna Bhujanga Rao S/o:Late Nunna Koteswar rao, Age:66 years, Occ:Pvt Employee R/o:H.No.12-1-8579/A, Flat No.79/A, Road No.2 Shivajinagar, Nagole, Hayath Nagar, Rangareddy District.
8.Nunna Narasimha Rao, S/o:Late Nunna Koteswar Rao, Age:62 years, occ:Retd.GovernmentEmployee.R/o:H.No.15-16-8,Dwarakanagar, Khanapuram haveli, Khammam City.
… Appellants
AND
1.Nunna Venkaiah, S/o:Raghavaiah, Age:96 years, Occ:Nil R/O:Bayyaram village and Mandal, Mohaboobabad District
Page 2 of 18
A.S.No.38/2025
2.Nunna Sambasiva Rao S/o:Venkaiah, Age:66 years, Occ:Rtd.Government Employee R/O:H.No.11-10-825/11/B, Raparthinagar Khammam City.
3.The Branch Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, R/o:H.No.464, Gattayya Center, VDO’s Colony, Gattaiah Center, Khammam town and District.
4.The Senior Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Gandhi Chowk, Tenali (Earlier Syndicate bank Presently merged into Canara Bank) (The bank name amended as per the orders vide IA No.1 /2022 dt:23.06.2022) Guntur District.
5.To whomsoever it may concern.
....Respondents
Appeal filed under Sec.372 and 388 of Indian Succession Act R/w Under
Order 41, Rule 1 R/w. 96 of C.P.C. aggrieved by the Order and decreetal,
dt.30.06.2025 passed by the II Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Khammam in
S.O.P.No.137 of 2018.
Between:-
1. Nunna Koteswara Rao, S/o:late Raghavaiah, Age:88 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o:H.No.7-2-108, Dwarakanagar, Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam.
2.Parupalli Anuradha W/o:Venkateswarlu, D/o:Nunna Nageswar Rao, Age:63 years, Occ:House wife, R/o:H.No.14-3-90, Jayanagar Colony, Ballepally, Khammam
3.Singu Jyothi W/o:Late S.Chiranjeevi, D/o:Late Nunna Nageswara Rao, Age:62 years, Occ:Branch Postmaster, R/o:Kotala Village, Chandragiri Mandal, Chittoor District.
4.Nunna Sundar Rao, S/o:Late Nunna Koteswar rao, Age:70 years, Occ:Rtd Bank Employee, R/o:H.No.7-2-108, Dwarakanagar, Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam
5.Nunna Lalitha W/o:late Nunna Krishnaiah, Age:59 years, Occ:House wife, R/o:H.No.3-4-56, Gollagudem colony, Rajupeta, Mulakalapalli Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.
6.Nunna Raghunadh, S/o:late Nunna Krishnaiah, Age:42 years, Occ: Pvt bank Employee, R/o:Flat No.5, Sai Srinithya Apartment, VDO’s Colony, Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam
7.Nunna Bhanu Kiran, S/o:Nunna Krishnaiah, Age:39 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o:H.No.3-456, Gollagudem Colony, Rajupeta, Mulakalapalli Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.
8.Nunna Bhujanga Rao S/o:Late Nunna Koteswar Rao, Age:66 years, Occ:Pvt Employee R/o:H.No.12-1-8579/A, Flat No.79/A, Road No.2 Shivajinagar, Nagole, Hayath Nagar, Rangareddy District.
Page 3 of 18
ASNo.38/2025
9.Nunna Narasimha Rao, S/o:Late Nunna Koteswar rao, Age:62 years, Occ:Retd.Government Employee, R/o:H.No.15-16-8, Dwarakanagar, Khanapuram haveli, Khammam City. (Petitioner Nos.4 to 9 are the legal heirs and legal representatives of deceased Nunna Koteswara Rao, they are added as per orders vide its IA No.5 of 2024
dt:03.10.2024)
… Petitioners
AND
1.Nunna Venkaiah, S/o:Raghavaiah, Age:91 years, Occ:Nil R/o:Bayyaram village and Mandal, Mohaboobabad District
2.Nunna Sambasiva Rao S/o:Venkaiah, Age:66 years, occ:Rtd. Government Employee R/o:H.No.11-10-825/11/B, Raparthinagar Khammam City.
3.The Branch Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, R/o:H.No.464, Gattayya Center, VDO’s Colony, Gattaiah Center, Khammam Town and District.
4.The Senior Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Gandhi Chowk, Tenali (Earlier Syndicate bank Presently merged intio Canara Bank) (The bank name amended as per the orders vide IA No.1 /2022 dt:23.06.2022) Guntur District.
5. To whomsoever it may concern.
....Respondents
This appeal is coming before me on 07.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Madhava Rao, learned counsel for appellants and Sri Ch.Venkat, learned counsel
for Respondent No.2 and Sri V.Verender, learned counsel for respondent No.4; the
respondent Nos.1, 3 and 5 are remained exparte; upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following;
J U D G M E N T
1.This is an appeal filed against the Order and decreetal order dated 30.06.2025 in S.O.P.No.137 of 2018 delivered by learned II Addl. Senior Civil
Judge, Khammam whereby and whereunder the petition of the petitioners is
hereby dismissed with no costs.
2.The petitioners aggrieved by the said order and Decreetal order have preferred this appeal. For the sake of convenience and for better understanding of the case facts, the parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the pleadings before the trial court.
Page 4 of 18
ASNo.38/2025
3. The petitioners filed the said petition for grant of Succession Certificate in favour of the petitioners by declaring the petitioners as the legal heirs of the Late
Nunna Narayana Rao and Nunna Seetha Mahalaxmi, who died on 02.09.20218 and on 12.03.2014 respectively, to receive the FDRs standing in the name of Late
Nunna Narayana Rao.
4.The facts in the petition before the trial court according to the petition averments are as follows; 4.1One Nunna Raghavaiah and late Atchamma had four sons namely Nunna
Venkaiah(1st respondent) Nunna Koteswar Rao, the father of petitioner Nos.4 to 9, Nunna Nageshwara Rao, father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and Nunna Narayana
Rao.
4.2 Nunna Narayana Rao is the younger brother to 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent and Senior paternal uncle of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and junior paternal uncle of the 2nd respondent. Nunna Narayana Rao and his wife Nunna Seetha
Mahalaxmi died issue-less and they did not adopt any one during their life time.
4.3 Nunna Narayana Rao had opened saving account with the 3rd respondent and there is more than Rs.3,00,294.16 as saving account balance as on 23.08.2018 and some amounts were kept in FDRs i.e.Rs.1,50,000/-, R.3,00,000/-
Rs.15,50,000/- and Rs.9,00,000/- (Total Rs.32,00,294 in the said saving account).
4.4 Nunna Narayana Rao had also opened Saving bank account with the 4th respondent and there is an amount of Rs.35,000/- as saving account balance and he had some amounts under FDRs with the 4th respondent for Rs.18,50,000/-.
4.5Later Nunna Narayana Rao, died intestate on 02.09.2018 and his wife
Seetha Mahalakshmi predeceased him on 12.03.2014 and they were issue less, as such, after his death his brother and other family members together have decided that the entire movable and immovable properties including FDR, cash, Gold will
Page 5 of 18
ASNo.38/2025
be divided in between them, as such the original FDRs original death certificate of Nunna Seetha Mahalakshmi and property documents were kept in safe custody of the petitioners family members as well as the family members of respondent
Nos.1 and 2 with different locks so that no one can take them without knowledge of each other.
4.6Late Nunna Narayana Rao who died on 02.09.20218 has nominated Sri
Nunna Sambasiva Rao 2nd respondent as his nominee for the above accounts as such the 2nd respondent taking advantage of the same had approached the respondent Nos.3 and 4 banks for encashment of FDRs in the name of late Nunna
Narayana Rao by submitting indemnity bond on the reason that the original FDR bond was misplaced but the original FDRs are in safe locks of petitioners and respondent Nos.1 and 2, then the petitioners and other family members approached the respondent Nos.3 and 4 banks and made an application
dt:23.09.20218 and 17.11.2018 respectively stating that they are the legal heirs of
late Nunna Narayana Raoand requested not to disburse the FDR amounts and S.B account amounts infavour of the 2nd respondent till finalizing the entire disputes between them and also got issued legal notice to the respondent No.3 and 4 on 12.11.2018 and 17.11.2018 respectively on which the bank authorities have advised them to approach the court of law.
4.7That the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the legal heirs of late Nunna
Nageshwar Rao who is brother of the respondent No.1 and petitioner No.1, petitioner Nos.4 to 9 are the legal heirs of Nunna Koteswara Rao. The petitioners and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are class-II legal heirs of Nunna Narayana Rao as per
Hindu Succession Act. The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entitled a share towards the share of their father the father of 2nd respondent who is arrayed as first respondent is alive, as such the second respondent is not entitled to any share in the property of Nunna Narayana Rao, It is further averred that the 2nd respondent though nominated as nominee, he is only a custodian and trustee to the amount of late
Nunna Narayana Rao. The nominee is entitled to withdraw the amount in case
Page 6 of 18
ASNo.38/2025
there is no dispute, but when there is a dispute as to legal heirs then the nominee has no right to deal with the movable and immoablve properties of Late Narayana
Rao. The FDR amount and saving bank account amounts will be divided in between the 1st respondent, first petitioner (Petitioner Nos.4 to 9 being legal heirs of 1st petitioner) and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 (as legal heirs of Nunna Nageswar
Rao) as they are the class-II legal heirs and they will get share as own brothers of late Nunna Narayana Rao. Hence the petition.
5.On the other hand, the the 2nd respondent has filed his counter denying the averments of the petition filed by the petitioners and submitted that the second respondent is the son of first respondent. Late Nunna Narayana Rao is the brother of first respondent, first petitioner/Nunna Koteshawara Rao (died, legal heirs petitioner Nos.4 to 9) and Nunna Nageswar Rao (Died, legal heirs petitioner
Nos.2 and 3) .
5.1During the life time of Nunna Narayana Rao, filed a suit O.S.No.120/2015 on 03.09.2019 for recovery of money basing on three promissory notes against one Vasireddy Chandra Sekhara Rao and his wife for recovery of total amount of
Rs.17,13,867/- with future interest and costs, pending on the file of learned I
Addl. District Judge, Khammam and while pending the said suit he died. Late
Nunna Narayana Rao, during his life time executed a General Power of Attorney on 11.07.2018 in favour of the 2nd respondent with regard to the said suit.
5.2 That late Nunna Narayana Rao out of affection for the services rendered by the 2nd respondent and also faith and confidence on him has nominated the 2nd respondent for the FDRs kept by him with the respondent Nos.3 and 4 which is amount to Rs.50,85,594/-. After the demise of late Narayana Rao some misunderstandings took place between the parties as a result by suppressing the real facts, the petitioners have filed this petition for grant of succession certificate to encash the FDRs which is not maintainable.
Page 7 of 18
ASNo.38/2025
5.3That Nunna Seetha Mahalakshmi wife of Narayana Rao died issue less prior to the death of late Nunna Narayana Rao leaving valuable house properties and constructed houses in Khammam, Angalakuduru village of Tenali, Guntur
District in the name of late Seetha Mahalakshmi and N.Narayana Rao worth about 3 ½ crores, therefore, legal heirs certificate of N.Narayana Rao and Seetha
Mahalakshmi is bound to receive for obtaining succession certificate on the entire properties stand in their names.
5.4 That a panchayat was held twice in which the iron safes in the house of
Nunna Narayana Rao were opened and the entire documents some amount and the FDRs found in the iron safe are listed out and after listing them, they were kept in the iron safe along with all necessary documents. The keys of the iron safe were kept with the son of the 1st petitioner by name N.Sundar Rao and the key of room is kept with second respondent and the keys of house and gate locks were kept with second petitioner. The signatures of the parties and elders were obtained on the two lists prepared but surprisingly the said facts were suppressed with greedy eye to avoid the payment of FDR amounts to the nominee. The petitioners have filed this petition which is not maintainable and prayed the court to dismiss the petition.
6.The 1st respondent has filed his adoption memo adopting the counter filed by 2nd respondent on his behalf.
7.Basing on the above pleadings of both parties and after hearing the learned counsels appearing on both sides, the following issue was settled for trial by the trial court;
Whether the petitioners are entitled for succesion certificate, as prayed
for?
8.During the course of trial, the petitioners have examined Pw1 and Pw2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. The 2nd respondent got examined himself as
Rw1 and Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 were got marked on their behalf.
Page 8 of 18
ASNo.38/2025
9.After completion of the trial and on hearing the arguments of both sides counsels, the trial court passed the impugned order and decreetal order dated 30.06.2025 by dismissing the petition with costs. Aggrieved by the said impugned order and decreetal order dt:30.06.2025 passed by the learned II Addl. Senior
Civil Judge Khammam, the unsuccessful petitioners preferred the present appeal
with the following grounds of appeal;
10. Grounds of Appeal:
10.1It is settled law that nominee alone is not entitled for release of the amounts, when there are the legal heirs of deceased Narayana Rao and in this case, the Respondent No.2 being Nominee is not at all entitled to release the amounts in his favour and only his father i.e R1 and late Koteswar Rao who is the petitioners in the trial court and one Nageshwar Rao the father of appellant Nos.1 and 2 are entitled together i.e. 1/3rd share each.
10.2 Since Koteswar Rao died i.e.Petitioner No.1 during pendency of the SOP in the trial court, his legal heirs of Appellant No.3 to 8 are entitled for the 1/3rd share of Koteswar Rao likewise, appellants Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for the 1/3rd share of their father Nageshwar Rao since the father of R1 is alive i.e., R2 he alone is entitled for 1/3rd share and therefore R1 has no exclusive right or any share in the A & B schedule amounts from R3 and R4 banks.
10.3That the 1/3rd share of late Koteswar Rao has to be shared by his 4 sons i.e. Appellant No.3, Appellant Nos.7 and 8 and one Krishnaiah who is the husband of Appellant NO.4 and father of Appellant Nos.5 and 6 I.e to say the 1/3rd share of Nunna Koteswhwar Rao is further divided into 12 shares out of which 3 shares each to appellant No.3,7 and 8 and one share each to appellant nos.4 to 6 each.
10.4 Likewise 1/3rd share of late Nageswar Rao is to be shared by Appellant
Nos.1 and 2 equally i.e. if the share of Nageswar rao is converted to be 6 shares and appellant Nos.1 and 2 are entitled 3 shares each. The respondent No.1 is
Page 9 of 18
ASNo.38/2025
entitled 1/3rd share. The respondent No.2 is not entitled any share for the reason that his father is alive i.e. respondent no.1 and therefore being one of the class-II heris of late Nunna Narayana Rao, respondent No.1 is entitled for 1/3rd share (12 shares ) along with others as mentioned in the above paras.
10.5 The trial court had not been able to appreciate the fact that the nominee is not entitled and only legal heirs are entitled to share the amounts of a deceased person who died intestate.
10.6 In the present case, admittedly the deceased Narayana Rao died intestate and the only claim of R2 is that his name being shown as nominee, he is entitled for entire amount which is not correct position of law where there are legal heirs who claim share of intestate person, the claim of nominee should not be considered.
10.7 Abundant evidence has been placed before the trial court about proof of the appellants herein and respondent No.1 are the Class-Ii heirs of deceased
Nunna Narayana Rao but in-spite of it, the trial court did not consider the case and dismissed the above SOP. No proper reasons are assigned for dismissal of the
SOP. The trial court also did not consider the claim of Respondent No.2 i.e. the claim of R2 as nominee and held that he is also not entitled for that amount. If that being so i.e., when the trial court admittedly kept aside the claim of R2 i.e., as nominee, then the trial court ought to have allowed the SOP directing the R3 an
R4 banks to release the amounts in favour of the petitioners.
10.8 That the trial court also had come to a conclusion that the FRDs and details of accounts lying with respondent Nos.3 and 4 are filed but the trial court failed to appreciate that Ex.P5 which contained details about the FDRs and SB accounts of deceased Narayana Rao, both sides i.e Appellants and Respondent
No.1 and 2 did not dispute about their relationship with deceased. So also both the parties agreed about the existence of FDRs and SB accounts and even the respondent Nos.3 and 4 the bankers also did not dispute about the A & B schedule
Page 10 of 18
ASNo.38/2025
property and that being so the trial court ought not to have given the finding that there is no evidence about A & B schedule property.
10.9 In view of death of two brothers i.e.,Koteshwara Rao who is petitioner
No.1 in the trial court and late Nageshwar Rao who is the father of Appellant
Nos.1 and 2, the trial court could notionally divided the shares into 36 out of which respondent No.1 may be allotted 12 shares and late Koteswar Rao and late
Ngeswar rao may be allotted 12 shares. Out of 12 share of Koteswar Rao the same to be partitioned by sons i.e. Appellant Nos.3, 7 and 8 and late Krishnaiah i.e., each of them have got 3 shares. The share of late Krishnaiah have to be again partitioned i.e.,one share each to his wife i.e. Appellant No.4 and his two sons i.e
Appellant Nos.5 and 6. That the share of Nageshwar Rao i.e., 12 share have to be equally shared by Appellant No.1 and 2 i.e., daughter of late Nageshara Rao and each of them are entitled 6 shares each.
10.10 The 12 shares of respondent No.1 have to be given to him and therefore he entitled 12 shares and therefore, the trial court may be pleased to issue
Succession Certificate with the following shares mentioned below.
Appellant No.16 share
Appellant No.26 share
Appellant No.33 share
Appellant No.41 share
Appellant No.51 share
Appellant No.61 share
Appellant No.73 share
Appellant No.83 share
Respondent No.112 shares and prayed the court to issue Succession Certificate i.e.Directing the R3 and R4 to encash the FDR amounts and saving account amount with interest accrued till date and issue the Succession certificate in favour of appellants i.e to divide entire
Page 11 of 18
ASNo.38/2025
amount of A & B schedule into 36 shares and to allot 6 shares each to appellant
Nos.1 and 2, 3 shares each to appellant Nos.3, 7 and 8 and one share each to
Appellant Nos.4 to 6 and 12 share to respondent No.1 and allow the appeal by setting aside the order and decretal order passed in S.O.P. No.137/2018
dt:30.06.2025 passed by the learned II Addl.Senior Civil Judge Khammam.
11. The learned counsel for the appellants relied on the following Judgments:
1. Smt. Sarabati Devi & Another vs Sm. Usha Devi, AIR 1984 Supreme Court of India, decided on 06.12.1983;
2. Smt. Annapurna vs Kavita & Others, Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, decided on 22.01.2025; and
3. Arun Kumar Singh vs Sm. Jaya Singh, Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, decided on 22.09.2022.
12.Now the point that arises for consideration is that :
1. Whether the impugned order and decreetal order of the Trial Court
suffers from any infirmity or irregularity and calls for any
interference by this Court?
2. To what relief?
POINT No.1 :
13. This Court has heard the arguments advanced by both sides. The learned counsel for the appellants has filed written arguments and relied upon various citations. This Appellate Court has carefully considered the contentions of the appellants in the succeeding paragraphs under the relevant issue.
14. The facts of the case revealed that late Nunna Raghavaiah and late
Atchamma had four sons namely Nunna Venkaiah (1stpetitioner), Nunna
Koteswar Rao (Petitioner No.1), Nunna Nageshwar Rao and Nunna Narayana
Rao among the 4 sons. Nunna Narayana Rao and his wife Nunna Seetha
Mahalakshmi died issue-less and did not adopt any one during their life time.
15.During the life time of Nunna Narayana Rao had opened two saving accounts and fixed the amounts under FDRs with R3 and R4 banks amounting to
Page 12 of 18
ASNo.38/2025
Rs.50,85,594/- and nominated the 2nd respondent/Sambasiva Rao for the said
FDRs with R3 and R4 banks.
16. While things stood, after the demise of Nunna Narayana Rao, the nominee i.e.,Respondent No.2 had approached R3 and R4 banks authorities for encashment of FDRs amount on that the petitioners and other family members approached R3 and R4 banks and made an application on 23.09.20218 and 12.11.2018 respectively stating that they are the legal heirs of Nunna Narayana
Rao and requested R3 and R4 not to disburse the FDR amounts and SB account amounts in favour of the 2nd respondent till finalizing the entire disputes before the court of law.
17.To the surprise of the petitioners, they have to come to know that R2 is trying to release the amounts by submitting indemnity bond stating that orignal
FDR bonds were misplaced with a malafide intention to grab the entire FDR amounts without submitting original FDRs before the banks as the Original
FDRs, original Death Certificate of Nunna Seetha Mahalakshmi and properties documents were in the custody of the family members of all the petitioners.
Accordingly, the petitioners were issued legal notice to R3 and R4 banks on 12.11.2018 and 17.11.2018 respectively on which the bank authorities has advised them to approach the court of law.
18. The main contention of the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are that they are the legal heirs of late Nunna Narayana Rao who is the brother of Respondent No.1 and petitioner No.1 and petitioner Nos.4 to 9 are the legal heirs of Nunna
Koteswar Rao as such the petitioners and R1 and R2 are class-II legal heirs of
Nunna Nageswar Rao as per Hindu Succession Act and entitled for their respective shares. Further, R1 is alive as such R2 is not entitled to any share of
Nunna Narayana Rao and further contended that R2 though nominated as nominee, he is only a custodian and trustee to the FD amount of late Nunna
Narayana Rao. The nominee is entitled to withdraw the amount in case there are
Page 13 of 18
ASNo.38/2025
no disputes, when there is a dispute as to legal heirs then the nominee has no right to deal with the movable and immovable properties of late Nunna Narayana Rao.
Hence, filed the above suit with a plea that the petitioners are entitled for the suit amount as class-II legal heirs as per Hindu Succession Act.
19.The trial court after perusing the entire record and after completion of trial has dismissed the above suit with an observation that the Original FDRs are not produced before the trial court and the petitioners nor the respondents got marked any documents to establish the death of Nunna Seetha Mahalakshmi. Aggrieved by the orders of the trial court, the petitioners/appellants have preferred this appeal before this court to adjudicate the matter in a right perspective as per the settled legal proposition of law.
20. Now to answer the same during the course of hearing on behalf of the appellants/petitioners, this court has allowed I.A No.2 of 2026 dt:26.03.2026 to receive the documents on behalf of the appellants/petitioners with the consent of the counsel on behalf of the respondents i.e.,the family members certificate/
Ex.P2, Ex.P3/Death Certificate of Late Nunna Seetha Mahalakshmi who died on 12.03.2014 and Ex.P14 to Ex.P20 (Original FDRs of R3 and R4 banks). Further in order to discuss about the legal position of law, as per the circular of
RBI/2005-06/48, RPCD.Co.RF. BC.No.12/07.38.01/2005-06 - “It has been made clear to the Survivor(s)/nominee that he would be receiving the payment from the bank as a trustee of the legal heirs of the deceased depositor i.e. such payment to him shall not affect the right or claim which any person may have against the survivor(s)/nominee to whom the payment is made”.
“It may be noted that since payment made to the sruvivor(s)/nominee subject to the foregoing conditions, would constitute a full discharge of the bank’s liability,
Page 14 of 18
ASNo.38/2025
insistence on production of legal representation is superfluous and survivour(s)/Nominee and would threfore, while making payment to the survivor(s)/nomneeof the deceased depositor, the baks are advised to desist from insisting on production of succession certificate, letter of administration or probate etc., or obtain any bond of indemnity or surety from the survivor(s)/nominee, irrespective of the amount standing to the credit of the deceased account holder”.
21.Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad vide Writ No.8197 of 2024 decided on 13.11.2024 has held that ; “ Section 45ZA (2) merely puts the nominee in the shoes of the depositor after his death and clothes him with the exclusive right to receive the money lying in the account. It gives him all the rights of the depositor so far as the depositor’s account is concerned. But it by no stretch of imagination makes the nominee the owner of the money lying in the account. It needs to be remembered that the banking
Regulation Act is enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to banking. It is in no way concerned with the question of succession, All the nominees receivable by the nominee by virtue of Section 45ZA(2) would, therefore, form part of the estate of the deceased depositor and devolve according to the rule of succession to which the depositor may be governed”.
22. In the above suit, the relationship between the parties is not in dispute.
Late Nunna Narayana Rao admittedly died intestate and issue-less and his wife
Nunna Seetha Mahalakshmi, predeceased him and there is no evidence of adoption. The petitioners and respondent No.1 are the brothers and the legal
Page 15 of 18
ASNo.38/2025
representatives of the predeceased brother of the deceased. Thus, they fall within the category of Class-II legal heirs under the Succession Act. The trial court failed to give due weightage to the admitted position, which forms the basis for determining the succession rights.
23. The existence of deposits and fixed deposit amounts standing in the name of the deceased is clearly established by the documentary evidence on record. The appellants have produced the relevant FDRs, bank passbooks and statements, which are marked as Exs.P14 to P20. Further, the respondents banks have not disputed the existence of such deposits and even the contesting respondent has not denied the availability of the amounts. Therefore, the finding of the trial court that there is no sufficient proof regarding the scheduled amount is erroneous and contrary to the material available on record.
24. The trial court dismissed the petition mainly on the ground that the original FDRs and Death Certificate of the wife of deceased were not produced.
Further, at the appellate stage, the appellants have produced the family member certificate and death certificate of Nunna Seetha Mahalakshmi and the original
FDRs which were received with the consent of the respondents. The production of these documents cures the defects pointed out by the trial court.
25. It is well-settled law that the appellate court has the power to admit
additional evidence in order to render complete justice. Therefore, the reasoning
of the trial court on this aspect cannot be sustained. The core issue in this case revolves around the legal status of Respondent No.2, who is a nominee in-respect of the bank deposits. It is a settled principle of law that a nominee is only a trustee or custodian of the amounts and does not become the absolute owner of the property. The amounts lying in the bank accounts forms part of the estate of the deceased and as such, devolves upon the legal heirs as per the law of succession.
The RBI guidelines and judicial precedents clearly establish that the nominee is entitled only to receive the amounts on behalf of the legal heirs and not to
Page 16 of 18
ASNo.38/2025
appropriate them exclusively. The trial court failed to properly appreciate and apply this settled legal position.
[
26. The evidence on record clearly establishes that the deceased had brothers, namely N.Venkaiah, N.Koteswar Rao, and N.Nageswar Rao. The Respondent
No.1, being the surviving brother is entitled to 1/3rd share. The remaining 1/3rd share shall devolve upon the legal heirs of the predeceased brother namely N.
Koteswar Rao and N.Nageswar Rao. The appellants, being their respective legal heirs, are entitled to claim their respective shares accordingly. The claim made by the appellants regarding the division of shares is consistent with the principles of succession and has not been effectively rebutted. The contention raised by the respondent regarding the maintainability of the petition is without merit. The petition for the Succession Act is maintainable for the purpose of collecting the debts and securities of a deceased person. The existence of disputes among the legal heirs does not bar the grant of a succession certificate, rather, it necessitates adjudication by the court. Therefore, the dismissal of the petition on such grounds is unjustified.
27. The approach adopted by the trial court appears to be hyper technical and instead of focusing on the substantive rights of the parties. The court has dismissed the petition on technical grounds relating to the non-production of documents which have subsequently been rectified. This court upon perusal of the entire evidence on record, is of the view that the trial court order suffers from legal infirmity and also improper appreciation of evidence and failed to apply the settled principles of law. Accordingly, the order passed by the trial court is liable to be set aside.
28. In view of the above discussion, this Court holds that the appellants being the legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to the grant of Succession Certificate in-respect of the amounts lying in the bank accounts and FDRs of late Nunna
Narayana Rao. The nominee/Respondent No.2 has no exclusive rights over the
Page 17 of 18
ASNo.38/2025
said amounts and can only act as a trustee for the benefit of the legal heirs. Hence, the findings of the trial court are set aside.
In the Result, this appeal is allowed without costs. The order and decree in
S.O.P.No.137 of 2018 dated 27.06.2025 passed by the learned II Addl. Senior
Civil Judge, Khammam is hereby set aside. The appellants and Respondent No.1
are entitled to get Succession Certificate in respect of the amounts and FDRs mentioned in Appeal Schedule lying with the Respondent No.3 and Respondent
No. 4 Banks, standing in the name of the deceased Nunna Narayana rao and they are entitled for the maturity amounts as under:
(a)The Respondent No.1 being the surviving brother is entitled for 1/3rd share.
(b) The legal heirs of Nunna Koteshwar Rao (Appellants No.3 to 8) are together entitled for 1/3rd share.
(c)The legal heirs of Nunna Nageshwar Rao (Appellants No.1 and 2) are together entitled to 1/3rd share.
(d) The Respondent No.2 being the nominee for Appeal Schedule property is not entitled for any share.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 9th day of April, 2026.
II ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE
KHAMMAM
Appendix of Evidence
Documents marked
For Appellants:
Ex.P12Family Member Certificate dt:07.02.2019
Ex.P13Death Certificate of late Nunna Seethamahalaxmi who died on 12.03.2014 dt:29.03.2014.
Ex.P14C.C of FDR No.416906 for Rs.1,50,000/- dt:09.02.2018
Ex.P15CC of FDR No.416906 for Rs.3,00,000/- dt:21.01.2018.
Ex.P16CC of FDR No.416499 for Rs.15,50,000/- dt:09.02.2018.
Ex.P17CC of FDR No.416500 Rs.9,00,000/- dt:09.02.2018
Ex.P18CC of Passbook S.B.A/C.No.68007980677 Rs.3,00,294/- Dt:15.10.2011.
Page 18 of 18
ASNo.38/2025
Ex.P19CC of stgatement of SB A/C.No.32722200020532 Rs.35,000/-
dt:14.02.2014 onwards
Ex.P20CC of FDR No.165083 for A/C.No.32724140000791 of 13, Rs.18,50,000/- dt:14.02.2014.
For Respondents
- NIL-
II ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE
KHAMMAM
Copy to : The II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Khammam