Karnataka High Court
Smt M B Vanamala vs Master Vihaan Raghav on 14 February, 2025
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 642 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SMT M B VANAMALA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
W/O LATE SRI.D.L.LAXMANA GOWDA,
R/A MADABUR, MADABUR POST,
N.R.PURA TALUK, CHIKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577134.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.B.S. MANIAN., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. GANESH H KEMPANNA., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. MASTER VIHAAN RAGHAV
S/O LATE RAGHAV LAXMANA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS,
REP BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN,
SMT. SHARANYA B.R.
2. SMT.SHARANYA B.R,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
W/O LATE RAGHAV LAXMANA GOWDA,
BOTH RESPONDENT NO.1 & 2 ARE
R/A NO.D-212 II FLOOR, JORDINE BLOCK, BRIGADE GARDANEA R.B.I LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR 7TH PHASE, BENGALURU-560078
3. M/S PAYPAL INDIA PVT LTD, PAYPAL H.R.TEAM, RGA TECH PARK, BLOCK-1, 2ND FLOOR, AT NO.3/1, -2- SARJAPUR MAIN ROAD, CARMELARAM, HADOSIDDAPURA, CHIKKAKANANNALLI, BENGALURU-560035 REP BY PAYPAL H.R.TEAM SMT. ANU RAGHAVAN, AGED 43 YEARS
4. M/S ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO.LTD, GROUP SERVICE DESK, RANI SATI MARG, MALAD E, MUMBAI-400097
5. THE MANAGER, HDFC BANK, NO.13, KOTHNUR DINNE MAIN ROAD, W.G.S. LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR 7TH PHASE, BENGALURU-560078
6. THE MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, BRANCH CODE-617 1, LIC BUILDING, K.R.SAGAR ROAD, MYSORE-570020
7. THE MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, JEEVAN JYOTHI, GANDHINAGAR, KOPPA-577126, CHIKMAGALUR DIST
8. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, K.M.ROAD, CHIKMAGALURU-577101 .....RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.R.S. RAVI., SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT. RAKSHITHA D.J., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 R3 & R8 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED SRI. VIJAYENDRA D JOSHI., ADVOCATE FOR R6 & R7 V/O. DT. 29.10.2024, NOTICE TO R4 & R5 IS D/W) -3- THIS CRP FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.08.2024 PASSED ON IA NO. 7 IN P AND SC NO.220/2023 ON THE FILE OF XII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, DISMISSING THE IA NO.7 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(d) R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PETITION AND ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 16.01.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by Smt.M.B.Vanamala, who is respondent No.1 in the Probate and Succession case in P&SC No.220/2023, aggrieved of the rejection of her application in I.A.No.7 on the file of XII Addl. City Civil Judge at Bengaluru City (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court' for short) filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Respondents No.1 and 2 herein filed a petition under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, seeking Succession Certificate jointly in the name of the -4- petitioners as well as the first respondent (who is the petitioner herein) in respect of the schedule items which are assets left behind by Sri Raghava Laxmana Gowda, the son of the petitioner herein and father/husband of respondents No.1 and 2 respectively. A prayer is also sought for permanent injunction restraining the other respondents from making any payment to the petitioner herein. The petitioner herein being respondent No.1 before the Trial Court filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC, seeking rejection of the petition. The Trial Court dismissed the application and consequently, this Civil Revision Petition is filed.
3. Learned Counsel Sri K.B.S.Manian, appearing for Sri Ganesh H.Kempanna, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that insofar as the amount lying in the respondent-HDFC Bank is concerned, in the Savings Bank Account of the deceased, a nomination has been made by the deceased person in favour of the petitioner, who is none other than the mother of the deceased. Attention of this Court is drawn to Section 45ZA of The Banking -5- Regulation Act, 1949, to contend that sub-section (2) of Section 45ZA clearly provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any disposition, whether testamentary or otherwise, in respect of such deposit, where a nomination made in the prescribed manner purports to confer on any person the right to receive the amount of deposit from the banking company, the nominee shall, on the death of the sole depositor, become entitled to all the rights of the depositor in relation to such deposit to the exclusion of all other persons, unless the nomination is varied or cancelled in the prescribed manner.
4. Similarly, under the Insurance Act, 1938, similar provision can be found in Section 39(7) and in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, such provision can be found in Section 6 and insofar as the Provident Funds Act, 1925 is concerned, such provision is contained in Section
5. Learned Counsel would therefore submit that having regard to the express provisions contained in the respective statutes governing the nomination, only the -6- nominee would be entitled to receive all the funds or shares left behind by the deceased person.
5. Learned Senior Counsel Sri R.S.Ravi, appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 however, draws the attention of this Court to a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shakti Yezdani and Another Vs. Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar and Others (2024) 4 SCC 642, and submits that similar submissions have been considered in respect of the rights of a nominee, having regard to such non obstante clause and the consistent interpretation given by Courts on the question of nomination and it was held that the nominee could not get an absolute title on the subject matter of nomination.
Rather, the laws of succession will determine succession to the subject matter.
6. Having regard to the latest decision of the Apex Court, it can be seen that all the relevant provisions contained in the Insurance Act, 1938; EPF and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952; Employees Provident Funds Act; Government Savings Certificates Act, 1959 and -7- the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, have fallen for consideration at the hands of the Apex Court. It was noticed that a consistent view appears to have been taken by the Courts, while interpreting the related provisions of nomination under different statutes. It was consistently held that the nomination so made would not lead to the nominee attaining absolute title over the subject property for which such nomination was made. The Apex Court has considered the effect of the word 'vest' contained along with the non obstante clauses in all such provisions providing for nomination and conferment of a right only in favour of the nominee. However, it was held that the use of the word 'vest' does not by itself confer ownership of the shares/securities etc., to the nominee. The vesting of the shares/securities etc., in the nominee is only for a limited purpose i.e., to enable the Company to deal with the securities thereof, in the immediate aftermath of the shareholders death and to avoid uncertainty as to the holder of the securities, which could hamper the smooth functioning of the affairs of the Company. In similar vein, as regards the non obstante clauses, contained in such -8- provisions, it was held that the purpose of invoking such a non obstante clause is clearly delineated and limited to the extent of enabling the depository to deal with the securities in the immediate aftermath of the security holder's death. While concluding it was held that the nominee would not get an absolute title to the subject matter of the nomination and any individual dealing with estate planning or succession laws understands nomination to take effect in a particular manner and expects the implication to be no different for devolution of the subject matter in accordance with the succession laws only.
7. The rights of the parties are therefore required to be decided, having regard to the law of succession which governs the parties before the Court. It is also seen that the petitioners before the Trial Court are seeking issuance of Succession Certificate jointly in the name of the petitioners and the first respondent (the petitioner herein). On the other hand, the petitioner herein seeks exclusive rights in respect of some of the items of the schedule. -9- Such rights have to be determined only after evidence is led by the parties and having regard to the law of succession which governs the parties herein.
8. This Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(R DEVDAS) JUDGE JT/-
CT: JL