Delhi District Court
Dr. A. K. Belwal vs . Syndicate Bank & Ors. on 9 October, 2015
Dr. A. K. Belwal Vs. Syndicate Bank & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE02 (SOUTH)
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
In the matter of :
CS No.282/13
Dr. A. K. Belwal,
S/o Late Sh. Purnanad Belwal,
R/o 137, Sukhdev Vihar,
Post OfficeJamia Nagar/New Friends Colony,
New Delhi 110025 ....Plaintiff
Versus
1. Syndicate Bank,
DTC Bus DepotII,
Sukhdev Vihar, Post Office,
New Friends Colony,
New Delhi - 110025
2. Canara Bank,
Okhla Industrial Estate,
(Near Subji Mandi),
New Delhi - 110025
3. Mrs. Shobha Joshi,
Hindi Officer, M. D. A. of ESIC,
Sector23, Dwarka,
New Delhi
4. Sh. Harish Joshi,
R/o Flat No.47, Ashok Apartment,
Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi.
5. Mrs. Rajni Joshi,
C/o Sh. Baliram Sharma,
Senior Auditor working with Shri Bali Ram Sharma,
Sr. Account Officer,
Office of Principal A. G. (Audit) Delhi,
AGCR Building, IPC Estate,
New Delhi
CS No. 282/13 Page 1 of 9
Dr. A. K. Belwal Vs. Syndicate Bank & Ors.
Also At:
C/o Principal,
Rao Lal Singh College of Education,
Sridhravali, Dist. Gurgaon - 122413
Haryana.
6. Mrs. Asha Kandpal,
Bank Colony,
Girl Tal, Kashipur,
Dist. Uddham Singh Nagar,
Uttrakhand
7. Sh. Vivek Joshi,
C/o Sh. Aditya Joshi,
Senior Auditor working with Shri Bali Ram Sharma,
Sr. Account Officer,
Office of Principal A. G. (Audit) Delhi,
AGCR Building, IPC Estate,
New Delhi
Also At:
C/o Principal,
Rao Lal Singh College of Education,
Sridhravali, Dist. Gurgaon - 122413
Haryana.
Also at:
C/o Sh. Aditya Joshi,
D35, Old Gupta Colony,
Near Vijay Nagar,
Kingsway Police Line,
New Delhi - 110009
8. Dr. Mrs. Vijaya Sati,
Reader in Hindu Hindu College,
University Enclave, Delhi - 7
Also at:
ICCR's Visiting Professor of Hindi
ELTE University, Budapest,
C/o Embassy of India,
1025 Budapest, 14 Buzavirag Utca,
Hungry
CS No. 282/13 Page 2 of 9
Dr. A. K. Belwal Vs. Syndicate Bank & Ors.
Also at:
C/o Professor Dinesh Singh
Vice Chancellor, University Enclave,
Delhi - 7
Also at:
C/o Dr. Vinay Sriwashtav,
Principal Hindu College,
University Enclave,
Delhi7
Also at:
C/o Pitamber Sati (FatherinLaw)
H. No.22, Hira Nagar, Haldwani,
DistrictNanital, Uttarakhand,
Also at:
Harish Sati (Husband) Pathologist
Opp. J. S. Base Hospital, Haldwani,
Dist. Nanital, Uttrakhand
9. Dr. Mrs.
Room No.107, 108 and 20,
Hans Bhawan, 1 BS Zafar Marg,
New Delhi
Also at:
B42, Sector55, Noida - 201301
U. P.
10. Dr. Ramesh Chand Belwal,
Missing Since 2002 ....Defendants
Date of Institution : 27.01.2012
Date of Reserving Judgment : 09.10.2015
Date of Decision : 09.10.2015
Final Decision : Dismissed
J U D G M E N T
( Suit for Rendition of Bank Accounts and Fixed Deposits) CS No. 282/13 Page 3 of 9 Dr. A. K. Belwal Vs. Syndicate Bank & Ors.
1. This is a suit for rendition of bank accounts and fixed deposit against the defendants.
2. Briefly stated, case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the eldest son of late Mr. P. N. Belwal and late Mrs. Chitra Devi. That defendants no.3 to 10 are also the legal heirs of late Mr. P. N. Belwal and late Mrs. Chitra Devi. That father of the plaintiff had fixed deposit and savings bank account no.1615 with Syndicate Bank (defendant no.1) and another fixed deposit and savings bank account no.86SR00016631 with Canara Bank (defendant no.2). That father of the plaintiff expired on 19.07.2003 and mother of the plaintiff expired on 06.12.2009. That the plaintiff inquired about the above mentioned bank accounts after the death of his mother in 2009 and came to know that defendants no.1 and 2 have released the entire amount in favour of defendants no.3 to 9. That the plaintiff has an apprehension that defendants no.3 to 9 had acted fraudulently to get the entire amount released in their favour in collusion with defendants no.1 and 2 without taking any NOC from the plaintiff. That upon a complaint made by the plaintiff, defendant no.1 disclosed vide its reply dated 12.02.2011 that the plaintiff had allegedly given an NOC in favour of defendants no.3 to 9. That the plaintiff never issued any such NOC. That the plaintiff has also filed a petition for issuance of succession certificate, which is still pending. Hence, the present suit is filed by the plaintiff.
3. Upon service of the summons, defendants no.1, 2, 5, 6, 7 & 10 neither appeared nor filed any WS. Accordingly, defendants no.1, 2, 5, 6, 7 & 10 were proceeded exparte. However, defendants no.3, 4, 8 & 9 appeared and filed their written statement denying the allegations as contained in the plaint. That suit is barred by limitation. That plaintiff CS No. 282/13 Page 4 of 9 Dr. A. K. Belwal Vs. Syndicate Bank & Ors.
has no cause of action to file the present suit. That plaint is liable to be rejected u/o VII Rule 11 CPC. Thus, on the above said grounds the defendants prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed.
4. Plaintiff filed replication to the WS of the defendants no.3, 4, 8 & 9 denying the preliminary objections and other averments as contained in the WS. Averments as contained in the plaint were once again reiterated by way of the replication.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issue was framed vide order dated 09.04.2015:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of rendition of accounts as prayed in clause (1 & 2) of the prayer clause? OPP
2. Relief, if any.
6. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 by tendering his evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.PW1/1. He relied upon documents Mark A to Mark K and thereafter, plaintiff closed his evidence.
Defendant no.9 & defendant no.8 examined themselves as DW1 & DW2 respectively by tendering their evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW19/A & ExDW28/A respectively. DW1 relied upon documents Ex.DW1/1 to Ex.DW1/18, Mark A, Ex.DW1/20 to Ex.DW1/21 and thereafter, defendants closed their evidence.
7. I have heard the contentions of both the sides and also gone through the record carefully. My issuewise findings are as under:
CS No. 282/13 Page 5 of 9Dr. A. K. Belwal Vs. Syndicate Bank & Ors. ISSUE NO.1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of rendition of accounts as prayed in clause (1 & 2) of the prayer clause? OPP
8. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff argued that plaintiff is the eldest son of his deceased parents namely Sh. P. N. Belwal and Smt. Chitra. It is further argued that defendants have illegally withdrawn the amount from the accounts maintained by the father of the plaintiff so it is prayed that a decree of rendition of accounts be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. In order to prove his case, plaintiff has examined himself as PW1.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsels for defendant no.3, 4, 8 & 9 argued that it has already been proved on record that in the account maintained in the name of father of the plaintiff with Canara Bank, plaintiff was the nominee and he has admitted to have received/withdrew the entire amount lying in the Canara Bank amount after the death of his mother. So there is no balance pending at least in the saving bank account bearing no.86SR00016631 with the Canara Bank. Hence, the plaintiff was within the knowledge of the status of the account maintained in the Canara Bank so there is no question of rendering the account in favour of the plaintiff.
Ld. Counsel further argued that plaintiff has given no objection certificate alongwith the other legal heirs who are party to the present suit as defendants to the syndicate bank following which after the settlement of death claim the amount was released to the mother of the plaintiff. It is further argued that thereafter the mother of the plaintiff got an account opened in the joint name with her daughter Ms. Shobha Joshi who is defendant no.3 in the present case and the same fact was within the knowledge of plaintiff. Ld. Counsel further argued CS No. 282/13 Page 6 of 9 Dr. A. K. Belwal Vs. Syndicate Bank & Ors.
that the mother of the plaintiff executed a document which is placed on record Ex.DW1/21 giving every right over her money to her daughters excluding the male descendants. The said documents is not challenged by the plaintiff and in fact the testimony of DW1 and DW2 stands proved in absence of any cross examination by the plaintiff. Ld. Counsels while relying upon a judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as K. C. Skaria Vs. Govt. of State of Kerala and Another (2006) 2 Supreme Court Cases 285, submitted that plaintiff has no cause of action seeking the present relief and even in the absence of any consequential relief sought, the suit deserves to be dismissed.
9. I completely argue with the arguments put forth by Ld. Counsels for the defendants and concludes after considering the evidence led on record that plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought herein for the following reasons.
Firstly, plaintiff has admitted in his cross examination that he was the nominee in the account maintained with the Canara Bank and there was no other operator of the bank except his mother after the death of his father. It is also admitted that after the death of the mother of the plaintiff, he withdrew the entire amount lying in the Canara Bank account so there is no question of rendition of accounts for the same.
Secondly, the plaintiff has claimed that there have been some FDRs deposited by his late father in the bank but no evidence to the said effect has been led by the plaintiff. No bank official has been called by the plaintiff to establish his claim, though, the defendant no.1 and 2 were proceeded exparte. It is also admitted on records that as per the statement of official from the Canara Bank there was no amount left in the Canara Bank and as per the admission of the plaintiff himself there CS No. 282/13 Page 7 of 9 Dr. A. K. Belwal Vs. Syndicate Bank & Ors.
was no fixed deposit with the Canara Bank. The plaintiff has failed to prove on record whether there was any fixed deposit by his father with the Syndicate Bank as well.
Thirdly, the plaintiff has admitted giving no objection certificate to the Syndicate Bank for the settlement of death claim and the release of amount in favour of his mother. Documents exhibited on record as Ex.PW1/D1 filed by the defendants is admitted to be correct by the plaintiff. Plaintiff was very well having knowledge of the status of the account maintained in Syndicate Bank in the joint name of his mother and his sister i.e. defendant no.3. The mother of the plaintiff was the only person entitle to the amount received in the bank account after the death of the father of the plaintiff and in view of the no objection certificate given by all the other LRs no one had any claim over the same. Vide documents Ex.DW1/21, mother of the plaintiff restrained his sons from using the money that will be left after her death with her daughters. The said documents has also not been challenged and stands duly prove on record.
Fourthly, the present suit being filed without any consequential relief is not maintainable in its present form. If we assume that plaintiff had any right or claim over the amount left by her deceased mother, it being a movable property, plaintiff was entitled to seek partition and recovery of his share alongwith the relief of rendition of accounts as its consequential relief. In absence of any consequential relief the present suit deserves to be dismissed.
Fifthly and lastly, in view of the judgment referred above by the defendants, I would like to reproduce paragraph 17 of the said judgment which says "a suit for rendition of accounts can be maintained only if a person suing has a right to receive an account from the defendant. Such a right can either be (a) created or CS No. 282/13 Page 8 of 9 Dr. A. K. Belwal Vs. Syndicate Bank & Ors.
recognised under a statute; or (b) based on the fiduciary relationship between the parties as in the case of a beneficiary and a trustee; or (c) claimed in equity when the relationship is such that rendition of accounts is the only relief which will enable the person seeking account to satisfactorily assert his legal right. Such a right to seek accounts cannot be claimed as a matter of convenience or on the ground of hardship or on the ground that the person suing did not know the exact amount due to him, as that will open the floodgates for converting several types of money claims into suits for accounts, to avoid payment of court fee at the time of institution". In view of the observations given above by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the facts of the present suit does not place the plaintiff in any of the above mentioned three situation. Thus, plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as prayed herein.
10. In view of the evidence led and the observations given above, this issue stands decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
Relief:
11. As a consequence to my findings on the above mentioned issue, suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
12. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court (Vishal Pahuja)
on 09.10.2015 CJ02 (South)/Saket Courts
New Delhi/09.10.2015
CS No. 282/13 Page 9 of 9