A significant clarification has emerged on the jurisdictional reach of Indian succession law over foreign movable assets. The Bombay High Court has affirmed that when a deceased person was domiciled in India, Indian law governs the succession to all movable property, regardless of its physical location abroad. This ruling resolves long-standing uncertainty for executors and heirs seeking to access overseas bank deposits, securities, or other movable assets.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner sought a Succession Certificate to claim debts owed to the deceased, Khan Mohamed Imran, held in Barclays Bank, United Kingdom. The Office of the Testamentary Registrar objected, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction over assets situated outside India, specifically in the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom.
Procedural History
- The petition was filed under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, seeking a Succession Certificate for movable assets.
- The Registrar raised an objection based on the foreign situs of the securities.
- The petitioner relied on a prior order dated 16 January 2023 in Testamentary Petition (L) No. 13026 of 2021, which had addressed a similar issue involving UK-based assets.
- The Court reviewed the precedent and the factual basis of domicile.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought the issuance of a Succession Certificate to enable legal access to the deceased’s movable assets held abroad, particularly bank deposits in the United Kingdom, and requested the court to overrule the office objection on jurisdictional grounds.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 5 and Section 371 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, empower an Indian court to grant a Succession Certificate for movable assets located outside India, provided the deceased was domiciled in India at the time of death.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on the precedent set in Testamentary Petition (L) No. 13026 of 2021, arguing that Section 5 explicitly provides that succession to movable property is governed by the law of the country where the deceased had domicile. Since the deceased was domiciled in Mumbai, Indian law applied. Counsel further submitted that Section 371 grants courts in India jurisdiction over succession matters concerning movable property of persons domiciled in India, irrespective of asset location. The domicile certificate issued by the Tehsildar, Mumbai City, was produced as conclusive proof.
For the Respondent
The Registrar’s office contended that Indian courts traditionally lack jurisdiction over foreign assets, citing the principle of territorial sovereignty. It argued that granting a Succession Certificate for assets abroad would conflict with foreign legal systems and create enforcement difficulties. The objection was framed as a jurisdictional limitation under procedural rules governing succession petitions.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statutory framework of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, particularly Section 5, which states: "The succession to the movable property of a person deceased shall be regulated by the law of the country in which such person had his domicile at the time of his death." The Court emphasized that this provision is not merely procedural but substantive, determining the applicable law of succession.
"In view of sections 5 and 371 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, if the deceased was resident of Mumbai and passed away in Mumbai, this Court would have requisite jurisdiction to grant Succession Certificate in respect of the debts, securities, assets, movable property etc. of the deceased."
The Court held that Section 371 confers jurisdiction on Indian courts to adjudicate succession matters concerning movable property of persons domiciled in India, irrespective of where the assets are physically located. The Court distinguished between jurisdiction to grant the certificate and the enforceability of the certificate abroad - affirming that the former is a matter of Indian law, while the latter is a matter of international comity and foreign legal procedures.
The Court further noted that domicile, not residence or nationality, is the decisive factor under Section 5. The domicile certificate issued by the Tehsildar of Mumbai City was accepted as conclusive evidence of domicile under Indian law.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that Section 5 and Section 371 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, empower Indian courts to grant Succession Certificates for movable assets located outside India, provided the deceased was domiciled in India at the time of death. The office objection was overruled upon submission of the domicile certificate and supporting affidavit.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Domicile Determines Applicable Law
- Practitioners must now establish domicile as the primary jurisdictional trigger, not asset location.
- A domicile certificate from Indian authorities is sufficient to invoke Indian succession law for foreign assets.
- Failure to prove domicile will render the petition vulnerable to dismissal, regardless of asset value or type.
Foreign Assets Are Not Excluded by Default
- Succession Certificates for overseas bank accounts, shares, or movable property can now be sought without prior foreign legal proceedings.
- Executors need not obtain ancillary probate or letters of administration abroad before applying in India.
- The certificate serves as a legal instrument under Indian law to initiate claims abroad, even if enforcement requires local procedures.
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- Petitioners must upload the domicile certificate and an affidavit-in-support on the Bombay High Court’s e-filing portal.
- The Court made it clear that procedural compliance is mandatory - no discretion is allowed to bypass documentation.
- Practitioners should treat domicile proof as a foundational requirement, not a formality.
