Joint Locker Hirer Not Liable To Secure Letter Of Administration To Operate Locker Upon Death Of One Of Hirers: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently held that a joint owner of a locker is entitled, as of right, to operate the locker, independent of the other owner, and thus, would not have to secure any letters of administration or probate under Section 29 of the Administrators-General Act, 1963, pursuant to the death of the other owner. 

Perusing Section 218 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, that stipulates as 'to whom administration may be granted, where the deceased is a Hindu, Muhammadan, Budhist, Sikh, Jain or exempted person’, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Shaji P. Chaly observed:

"In my considered opinion, Section 218 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 stipulates the manner in which administration of estate is to be granted by a court of law, in cases where a person has died intestate. This is a case where the first petitioner, who is the joint owner of a locker hired from the Bank, was prevented by the Bank from operating the locker. To put it otherwise, in my considered view, Section 218 of the Act, 1925 has no application, since the petitioner is the joint owner, who is entitled, as of right, to operate the same, even according to the Bank, independent of the other joint hirer of the locker. There is also no requirement to secure any letters of administration under Section 29 of the Administrators-General Act, 1963. There is also no case for the respondent Bank that there is any litigation instituted by anyone in the matter of assets left by the deceased Sasidharan Pillai". 

The first petitioner and her husband had hired a locker jointly in the SBI, where they had kept their valuables. The petitioners averred that they had intimated the death of the 1st petitioner's husband to the Bank on time, and that they were the sole legal heirs of the deceased. However, when the first petitioner had approached the bank following the death of her husband, requesting permission to operate the locker, the same was denied. The petitioner was later intimated vide a letter dated January 4, 2023, by the Branch Manager of the Bank, that she had to secure necessary proof of legal representation in the form of Probate or Letters of Administration in order to operate the same. 

It is the case of the first petitioner that since joint hirers were permitted to operate the locker independently during the lifetime of her husband, and there had not been any contract executed by and between the parties that the locker could only be operated jointly, the stance adopted by the Bank was illegal and arbitrary.

It was pointed out by Advocate Praveen K. Joy on behalf of the petitioners that in Shobha Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala (2019), the Kerala High Court had previously permitted one of the joint hirers of a locker to operate the same, on production of a death certificate. He thus contended that the stand adopted by the respondent Bank was against the settled principles of law and the policies and guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. 

On the other hand, the respondents represented by Advocate Jawahar Jose and the Standing Counsel for SBI Advocate Jithesh Menon, argued that the Bank was right in insisting for Probate or letter of administration from the petitioner, by relying on the Circular and revised guidelines that had been issued by the bank. 

The Court in this case, taking note of the factual circumstances, observed,

"In my considered opinion, when the first petitioner and her husband were joint hirers of a locker and they were permitted to operate the locker independently during the lifetime of the husband; the first petitioner is entitled, as of right, to operate the locker, after the death of her husband. It is equally important to note that the first petitioner as well as her husband were permitted to operate the joint locker independent of each other during the lifetime of Sasidharan Pillai, and the same legal position continued after the death of Sasidharan Pillai". 

The Court went on to peruse the Circular dated August 18, 2021, issued by the RBI that deals with locker allotment; infrastructure and securities standards; locker operations; nomination facility and settlement of claims, and ascertained that it only provides for 'nomination facility'. It further noted that the provisions in the Circular only provided for a situation where the locker is permitted to be operated by a nominee after the death of the hirers.

The Court thus rejected the argument of the Standing Counsel that a joint locker hirer also had to follow the procedure enshrined in the Circular. 

The Court thereafter perused the guidelines issued by the SBI, where it had been stipulated in clause 10.2. (a) that in case where deceased locker hirer had not made any nomination or where the joint hirers had not given any mandate that the access may be given to one or more of the survivors by a clear survivorship clause, the procedures prescribed thereunder may be adopted. The Court noted that sub-clause (b) goes on to clarify that the said situation also deals with a case where there is no nomination by the sole locker hirer; which specifies that in case of death of a sole locker hirer (where there is no nomination) and there is a valid will, probate may be obtained, and access may be given to the executor/administrator; in other cases, access may be given to the legal representative of the deceased; and in such cases, death certificate and proof of the legal representation should be obtained and the legal representation would be in the form of probate or Letters of Administration. 

"In my considered view, none of the circumstances contained under Exhibit R2(a) circular and Exhibit R2(b) guidelines issued by the State Bank of India would come into play insofar as a joint locker hirer is concerned even after the death of one of the hirers," the Court ascertained. 

The Court further took note of the Madras High Court Division Bench ruling in Hepzibah Annathai Rengachari v. R. Ananthalakshmi Rangachari (1975), in which it had been laid down that monies in bank either or survivor or joint accounts, letters of administration is not necessary for claiming the same. 

Considering the above, the Court held that a joint locker hirer would not be liable to secure a letter of administration or succession in order to operate the locker in the event of the death of one of the hirers.

"Upshot of the above discussion is that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. The writ petition is allowed and consequently it is declared that the first petitioner is entitled, as of right, to operate the locker in question. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the respondent Nos. 2 [the Bank] and 3 [Branch Manager] to permit the first petitioner to operate locker No.26 held by the first petitioner with the State Bank of India, Chadayamangalam Branch, Kollam District," the Court said while allowing the writ. 

Case Title: Lalithambika & Ors. v. Grievance Redressal Committee & Ors. 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 103

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment