1. Petitioners claim to be the legal heirs of late Sri.M. Venugopal, who was an Advocate of the Thrissur Bar. Sri. Venugopal was a member of the Kerala Advocates’ Welfare Fund administered by the first respondent. When Sri. Venugopal joined the Advocates’ Welfare Fund, he had nominated his wife Smt. Kanakam Vanugopal as his nominee. However, Smt. Kanakam Vanugopal expired on 11.8.2002 and a fresh nomination was not made. Subsequently, Sri. Venugopal also expired on 6.11.2009. Exts.P1 and P2 are the death certificates of Smt. Kanakam Venugopal and Sri. M.Venugopal.
2. On the basis that they are the sole legal heirs of late Sri. Venugopal, petitioners submitted Ext.P4 application to the first respondent, claiming disbursement of an amount of Rs.3,14,285/-, being the Welfare Fund due to the deceased. To that application, Ext.P5 communication was received, stating, inter alia, that the petitioners’ claim should be supported by a Succession Certificate issued by a competent Civil Court. A lawyer notice issued on behalf of the petitioners was also replied by the first respondent, insisting that Succession Certificate should be produced. Subsequently, in Ext.P6 letter issued to the Power of Attorney holder of the petitioners also, the first respondent reiterated the same stand. It is in these circumstances this Writ Petition has been filed, seeking the following reliefs:
“(b) Declare that the first respondent, the Kerala Advocates’ Welfare Fund Trustee Committee, is the sole authority to decide regarding the legal heirs entitled to receive the amount due from the Welfare Fund and the insistence of production of a succession certificate issued by the Civil Court is unwarranted.
(c) Direct the first respondent to conduct an enquiry regarding the legal heirs of deceased M. Venugopal and on satisfying that the petitioners are the sole legal heirs release the Advocate Welfare Fund amount due to the petitioners forthwith.
(d) Declare that legal heirship certificate issued by the Competent Authority is sufficient proof that the petitioners are the legal heirs of late M. Venugopal.”
3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the first respondent, wherein the respondents have attempted to justify their demand for production of Succession Certificate.
4. I heard the counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondents.
5. The only issue that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is the justifiability of the demand of the first respondent that, for disbursing the dues under the Kerala Advocates’ Welfare Fund Act, 1980, the petitioners should produce a Succession Certificate. The Welfare Fund in question has been constituted under S.3 of the Kerala Advocates’ Welfare Fund Act, 1980 and the Rules framed thereunder.
6. Section 4 of the Act provides for establishment of a Trustee Committee, the functions of which are enumerated in S.9.S.9(c), being relevant, is extracted below for reference:
“9(c). Receive applications from the members of the Fund, their nominees or legal representatives, as the case may be for payment out of the Fund conduct such enquiry as it deems necessary for the disposal of such applications and dispose of the applications within five months from the date of receipt thereof.”
7. Section 15 of the Act deals with the membership in the fund and S.16 provides for payment from the fund on cessation of practice.S.16(2) provides for that in the event of death of a member, the amount due shall be paid to his nominee and in the absence of a nominee, to his legal heirs. This Section reads thus:
“16(2). In the event of death of a member the amount shall be paid to his nominee or where there is no nominee to his legal heirs.”
8. Section 16(6) provides for an application for payment from the fund and S.16(7) provides for that such application shall be disposed of by the Trustee Committee after such enquiry as it deems necessary. This Section is also extracted below for reference:
“16(7).An application received under sub-section (6) shall be disposed of by the Trustee Committee after such enquiry as it deems necessary.”
9. Under S.21 of the Act, any decision of the Trustee Committee is appealable to the Bar Council.S.25 of the Act bars jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in respect of matters which are to be settled, decided or dealt with or to be determined by the Trustee Committee or the Bar Council. This Section reads thus:
“25. Bar of Jurisdiction of Civil Courts.—No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle decide or deal with any question or to determine any matter which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with or to be determined by the Trustee Committee or the Bar Council.”
10. As already seen, S.9(c) provides that upon receipt of an application from the member of the Fund, their nominees or legal representatives for payment out of the Fund, the Trustee Committee is required to “conduct such enquiry as it deems necessary for the disposal of such application”. After conducting necessary enquiry as contemplated in the Section, the Committee is required to dispose of the application within five months from the date of receipt thereof. Further, the obligation of the Committee to conduct necessary enquiry in this behalf is also incorporated in S.16(7), which says that the Committee shall dispose of the application “after such enquiry as it deems necessary.”
11. Therefore, if an application under S.16(6) is made to the Committee for disbursement of money from out of the Fund, under S.9(c) and 16(7) it is the statutory duty of the Committee to conduct such enquiry which it deems necessary for the disposal of the application. This will necessarily include an enquiry into the entitlement of the claimant to make such claim for payment out of the fund. If it were not the legislative intention that the responsibility to make such enquiry, which is necessary for the disposal of the application, should not be that of the Committee, it was unnecessary for the legislature to have employed the language of S.9(c) and 16(7) in the manner in which it is presently occurring in the Act. Therefore, once an application is made by a nominee or a legal representative, it is for the Committee to decide the entitlement of the applicant. Since the entitlement of an applicant for payment out of the fund is a matter which is to be decided by the Committee, adjudication of such issues are outside the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, in view of S.25 of the Act.
12. Further, S.16(2) of the Act provides that in the event of death of a member, the amount shall be paid to his nominee or where there is no nominee, to his legal heirs. A Succession Certificate issued under Part X of Indian Succession Act, 1925, merely clothes the holder of the Certificate with an authority to realise the debts of the deceased and to give a valid discharge. He has to dispose of the amount so realised in accordance with rights of the parties entitled to it. Therefore, unless holders of the succession certificate are also legal heirs, a payment made to the holder of a Succession Certificate is not a payment made to the legal heirs of the deceased member of the fund and, therefore, any such payment will not satisfy the requirements of S.16(2) of the Act.
13. Consequently, when the petitioners herein submitted Ext.P4 application, though it was open to the Committee to call upon them to produce further materials which it considers necessary to decide the claim, the Committee could not have insisted on the production of Succession Certificate from a Civil Court to decide on the claim for payment on that basis.
14. In the view, I direct that the first respondent will consider Ext.P4 application made by the petitioners in the light of the further materials, which it may call upon the petitioners to produce, conduct necessary enquiries and a decision in this behalf shall be taken, at any rate, within three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.