The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circ;mr;tances stated in the affidavit filed in ;Lrpport of the petition, the High Court nray be pleased to direct the respondentr; no.1 and 2 herein to forthwith comoly 'rvith the order d1.20 2.2025 passed t,y the Hon'ble First Senior Civil Judge C ty Civil Court, Hyderabad, in S.O P.rro. 1a o'f 2024 and transfer the amount tc the petitioner without reference to C).P.No. 66 of 2025 filed by the respondent no.3, pending disposal of the above \vrit petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PRAMOD SINGH Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: SRI MANAV GECIL THOMAS Counsel for the Resp,rndent No.3: SRI MIRZA SHAH NAWAZ BAIG The Court made the f,rllowing: ORDER i,t HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 2O3t4 OF 2025 ORDER: Petitioner claims that his sister Smt. Mairaj Sultan @) Mairaj Sultana Begum holds savings Bank Account No.1102 137273 with CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, Nampaltv Branch, Hyderabad - Respondents I and 2. She died on

07.06.2019 at her residence in Hyderabad. I . 1. It is stated, petitioner's deceased sister u,as initially married to Late Moin Nawaz Khan u,ho died on I 1.4.20 1 I, therefore, she contracted second marriage at 77 with onc Syed Hadi Ali, who deserted her later and went to U.S.A and lived there with his l.t wife and completely neglected the deceascd Mairaj Sultan. Thereafter, it is claimed, petitioner took care of her; bore all the expenditure including medical expenditure and also performed her last rites. It is lcarnt that the second husband ol the deceased, Syed Hadi also died in U.S.A. as he was above 90 years at the time of marriagc with Late Mairaj Sultan, so deceased died issueless.

1.2 During her life time, Mairaj Sultan executed a Hiba Nama dated O5.O1.2O18 confirming the oral Hiba dated

04.O8.2017 and petitioner also accepted the oral Hiba and took l possession ol all the movable and immovabb properties mentioned in }{iba Nama belonging to the dece:rse,l sister- Under the said Hiba Nama, Mairaj Sultan gifted zr flat at Red Hills, Hydera b:rd and othcr movables such as Car, Gold, etcetera as a lso mone1, lying in her savings Bank Account No. 1102 1372i'3 rvith CENTRAL BANK OF tNDlA, I'Iampally Branch, Hvclcrabad amountinEl to Rs. 34,O0,OOO/- in avour of petitioner in lieu of services rcndered by her at the fag end of her life. Hov,'ever, petitioner's younger brother name:ly Mirza Ayub Khan fa lse ly claimed flat at Red Hills- He th<:refore, filed O.S.No. 664 of 2022 on the file of III Junior Civil ju,1ge, Cir-y Civil Courts a grrinst his brolher in respect of the s;rid flat. The said matter uas settled amicably before the tok Adalat and an Award rvas p;rssed in LAC No.32212O23 dated 16.02.2O23. In the said Au,ard, Mirza Ay.ub Khan admitted execution of Hibanama cla-ed 05.01.2018 in favour of petitioner and waived of his right.s in the above said flat and other movables belonging to Miraj Sultan. Thereafter, petitioner is stal.r:d to have approached the 1sr respondent and showed him Hibanama and requested to transfer the amounts lying in the account of Miraj Sultan to his ac:count. The 1st respondent refused to rr:lease the said amount as no nominee is mentioned in the Bank: account and requested to furnish succession certificate or legal heir granted by a competent court for withdrawal of the said amount. Under the above circumstances, petitioncr filed S.O.P. No. 18 of 2024 on thc filc of the I Senior Civil .Iudge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad under Section 372 of the lndian Succession Act, 1925, seeking to grant succession declaring him as legal heir and successor of Mairaj Sultan Mairaj Sultana Begum and entitlcd for Rs.34,OO,00O/ lying in the savings Bank Account of respondent bank. Thc civil Court allowed the O.P. and issued Succcssion Certihcatc by order dated 20.02.2025. He obtained certificd copy of the order and approached the respondent bank on 12.03.2025. However, the l"t respondent failed to comply with the court orders.

1.3. Pctitioncr states that he is an octogenarian and he submitted another representation by way of legal notice dated

26.05.2025, followed by representation dated 12.06.2025 to release the amounts. However, the 2"d respondent issued Lettcr dated 16.O6.2O25 inlorming that bank received one claim petition urde OP.No. 66 of 2025 filed by one Mirza Muzaffer Mohammed claiming that he is the relative of deceased late Syed Hadi Ali and that the bank received summons, hence is unable to decide the original legal heir of deceased and after deciding l OP No.66 of 2t)25 the bank would pay the claim amo-rnt as per the orders of the Court. After receiving the reply, petitioner approached Responclent No.2 and informed that S'uccession Certificatc issrrr:d b.v the Court is conclusive under St:ction 381 of the 192.r l\ct :rnd binds everyone until the samc is t'evoked or set asidc; iurther, he also executed an IndemrLity Bond undertaking to deposit the amount as per future directions in the event of anv rival claim or dispute. At any ratc, petitioner claims, rcsp()ndent bank has no authority to deny transfer of amount on the ground that another OP has been filed, until there is stay rt straining the bank from releasing the r.mount. It is also statecl, Respondent No.3 is neither relative of his sister nor her husi>and and he failed to prove that he is related to their familv. A<:cording to petilioner, mere filing of O[' ciaiming to be relative does not create any right in Respondent I'{o.3. This purely shows collusion between the bank and Respon,lent No.3 to stop payrn,rnt to him. It is stated, his sister died in 2O19 and what made nrspondent wait all these years to file the OP is no.t known. Further, Respondent No.3 failed to file any rlocument on the basis of which he is claiming to be declared as successor.

2. Lezrrned counsel for petitioner Sri Pramcd Singh submits that a perusal of the contents of SOP fi1ed try the 3.d 5 ) respondent shows that Hadi Ali, the husband of deceased Mairaj Sultana, was nominee of the bank account and that being the nominee, Hadi Ali executed Hiba Nama to give the benellts to petitioner thcrein. [t is vehemently denied that Hadi Ali was the nominee of Mairaj Sultana as far as the subject bank account is concerned. In fact there was no nominec as such, petitioner had filed Succession O.P. The fact that there is no nomination in the bank account of deceased is also fortified from the letter issucd by the respondent bank dated 1O.O7.2025. Further it is not knor,r,n in law as to how a nominee can execute Hiba Nama in respect of account held by the account holder. There is no such provision under law. Therefore the mcre contention that Hadi Ali being the nominee executed Hiba does not hold good and the same is not permissible under law. Further the so called Hibanama is an unsigned Hiba Nama.

3. The respondent bank liled counter stating that the present case has been filed by Petitioner as there is no nominee and in view of the said fact, there has to be a decision of adjudication on the legal heir of the deceased and only then the Bank can release the money. [t is stated, SOP No. 18 of 2024 was decreed in favour of petitioner. However, another SOP No. 66 of 2025 was filed claiming to be another legal heir and thus 6 -) the Bank could not comply u'ith the order in SOP Nrt. 18 of 2024 in view of thc only fact that there is no nominee in tht: account as clearly mcntioned in Page No. 40 of the material papers hled in the Writ PctiLion.

3.1. It is also stated, the aspect of thc factual relationship between the parties cannot be decidt:d rn a Writ Petition and thc samc have to be dccided only in it Sttccession Original Petition or a Legal Heir Suit. The Bank cannot comment up(,n the relationship between the partir"s as averrcd in the said P:Lragraph. It is stated, there are disptttes betu,een the legal heirs of the deceased. The copies of O.S. N:. 664 of 2022 and L.A.C. No. 322 of 2023 have not been file'd along with the Writ Petit:on for reasons best known. If Petitionr:r ir; the sole legal heir of lzttt: Miraj Sultan, then, another SOP No. 6o of 2025 would not havt: been filed. Since another SOP is pending, the Bank is unat,le to release lunds as no nominee is the re in the account. The aspect as to u,hether SOP filed by Rcspotrdent No. 3 is correct or not cannot be decided by the Bank as th : same is pending adjtrdication before the civil Court. 'lhere is no collusion bctryeen the Bank and Respondent No. l), a:; alleged, as the Bank never pressed upon any third person to file a case in this regard. Thus, in view of the order dated 25.04..2024 in '') ) g 7 Writ Petition No., 4157 of 2024, the present Writ Petition may be dismissed.

4. Heard Sri Manav Gecil Thomas, learned counsel for the respondent bank.

5. A perusal of the record shows that petitioner f-rled SOP No. 18 of 2024 on the file of the I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts at I'{ydcrabad under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of succession certificate in his favour in respect of petition schedule amount which is lying in the name of Late Smt. Mairaj Sultan (a) Mairaj Sultana Begum who is his sister, u,ith respondent bank. The said O.P. was allowed by order dated 2O.O2.2O25 directing issuance of succession certificate in favour of petitioner and respondent bank was directed to transfer the amount in his favour along with accrued interest on proper identification and under proper acknowledgment. Petitioner should pay requisite court fee for issuing succession certilicate and he is entitled for his share in accordance with the Muslim Law. Pursuant to the said order, petitioner paid requisite Court fee and thereafter, he is stated to have executed indemnity bond as per the requirement of respondent bank. However, on the ground that SOP No. 66 of ,| 202$was filed by one Mirza Muzaffer Mohammad claiming that 8 he is thc relative of deceased late Syed Hadi Ali, u'ho is the second husband of deceased and that the bank receivcd summons, thev could not decide the original legal hcir:;. (r. l\dmittedly, petitioner is an octogc'n:rrian. Mere11,, for the rc-its,)n that another person contested sr,tcc:ssion by filing SOP Nc,. 66 of 2025, the right accrued to petitioeer under the decrec of civil Court in SOP No. 18 of 2024 docs nol automaticallt' nullify. Furthcr, the succession ccrtificate was granted bl thq competent Court with a further direct ion to respondent trank to transfer thc amount along rvitL accrued interest on p:oper identification, in favour of pe titioner. [n that view of the rlatter, respondent bank cannot denv trzLnsferring the amour rt t(l the account of petitioner, on t he guise ol pendency of ,lnother SOP filed by the 3'a respondr:nt. The 3'd respondent u as made a party to this Writ Petition a;rd notice issued to him was returned un-served. Later, tLis Court permitted lea -ned counsel for petitioner to take pelsorral notice on the 3.d re..;pondent as well as learned counsel appt:aring on his behalf before the trial Court. It is stated, the notice u,as served on him, yet, the 3rd respondent did not r::rake his appearance br:f<rre the Court. i / / \ 9 7 . In that vierv of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that Writ petition deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly, allowed. Rcspondent bank is directed forthu,ith comply with the order passed by the civil Court in SOp No. 1g of 2024 and transfer the amount to petitioner without reference to SOP No. 66 of 2O2S filed by the 3.d respondent. No cosrs. 8. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. SD/. A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 5 The Manager, Central Bank of lndia, Fateh lVlaidan Branch, LB Stadium, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad The Branch ltlanager, Central Bank of lndia, Nampally Branch, Hyderabad, T.S. One CC to SRI PRAMOD SINGH, Advocate IOPUC] One CC to SRI N4ANAV GECIL THOMAS, Advocate [OPUCI One CC to SRI IVIIRZA SHAH NAWAZ BAIG, Advocate [OPUC]

6. BSR LS Two CD Copies r4 HIGH COURT DATED:07110t2025 . I l1:;l 24 t[I PP . t' z I t, 1) '.S'-.rl Oli ORDER WP.No.20314 of 2025 ALLOWING TI.IE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COS-TS q 'A- 7V \ (_' €