The value threshold decides the paperwork
With no nominee and no will, transmission is driven by how much the holding is worth. SEBI's framework, revised in 2026, lets you transmit below a value threshold on simplified documents, and requires court papers above it. As the figures currently stand, that threshold is around ₹10 lakh per company for physical shares, and ₹30 lakh for a demat account, and a listed company is allowed to set a higher limit if it chooses.
Below the threshold, you provide an affidavit or self-declaration, an indemnity bond, a no-objection from the other legal heirs, a legal-heir certificate from a competent authority, and the death certificate, and the shares transmit without a succession certificate. There is also a fast-track for very small holdings. Because the threshold has been raised over the years, from figures like ₹2 lakh, then ₹5 lakh, older guidance often quotes an out-of-date number, so it is worth confirming the current limit before assuming a court paper is needed.
When you do need a succession certificate
Above the threshold, or where the heirs cannot agree to give a no-objection, the depository will ask for a court instrument. For securities, which are movable property, that instrument is usually a succession certificate under the Indian Succession Act, Sections 370 to 390, which establishes the heirs entitled to the deceased's movable assets. If a will surfaces, the corresponding instrument is probate of that will; where there is no will and the estate needs formal administration, a letter of administration.
For an NRI heir this is worth planning around, because obtaining a succession certificate takes time and court fees. If the holding is close to the threshold, it can be cleaner to keep it below by dealing with holdings company by company, since the physical-share limit applies per company. A practising CA, with a lawyer where a court paper is unavoidable, works out the shortest lawful route for your specific holding.
The nominee point, for next time
This whole difficulty exists only because there was no nominee. Where a nominee is named, the shares transmit straightforwardly to the nominee, without the succession route, but with an important limit, established by the Supreme Court in Shakti Yezdani v Jayanand Salgaonkar: the nominee takes the shares as a trustee for the legal heirs, not as the owner. So nomination smooths the transmission, it does not decide who ultimately inherits.
That is the practical lesson to carry to your own holdings. Naming a nominee on every demat account and deposit spares your heirs exactly the paperwork you are now dealing with, while the will still governs who truly gets what. A CA and a lawyer set up the nomination and the will together so the two work in tandem rather than against each other.