Madras High Court
P.J.Lakshmi vs M/S.Indian Overseas Bank on 25 July, 2024
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
W.P.(MD) No.23739 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.07.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.(MD) No.23739 of 2019
1.P.J.Lakshmi
W/o.Late.V.Krishnan
2.P.S.Venkataramanan
S/o.Late.V.Krishnan ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.M/s.Indian Overseas Bank
Rep. by its Regional Manager,
Regional Office,
Plot No. 40, 80 Feet Road,
Arignar Anna Nagar, Madurai-20.
2.Indian Overseas Bank
Rep. by its Chief Manager,
310, B6 and B7 Sunder Complex,
1st Floor, Tiruchuli Road,
Aruppukottai-626101.
3.Indian Overseas Bank
Rep. by its Chief Manager,
203, Triplicane High Road,
Next to Triplicane Post Office,
Triplicane, Chennai-5.
4.Sundaravalli
D/o.Velu ... Respondents
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 1 of 20
W.P.(MD) No.23739 of 2019
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the second and third
respondents to pay the proceeds of Savings Account No.
009801000039374 which stood in the name of the petitioner's deceased
husband V.Krishnan.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Vijayakumar, Senior Counsel
for Mr.P.Velmurugan
For R1 to R3 : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
Senior Standing Counsel
For R4 : Mr.S.Balamurugan
ORDER
This case was heard at length and the orders were reserved on 18.06.2024. After orders were reserved, on the following day i.e., 19.06.2024, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent filed counter affidavit and thus, the case was de-part heard and taken up for hearing again. Therefore, this case is heard today.
2. The petitioners have filed this Writ Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second and third respondents to pay the proceeds of Savings Account No.009801000039374 which stood in the name of the petitioner's deceased husband V.Krishnan.
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 2 of 20 W.P.(MD) No.23739 of 2019
3. The specific case of the petitioners is that the first petitioner's husband, V.Krishnan died on 06.04.2019 in Aruppukottai. The first petitioner's husband late V.Krishnan had maintained a Savings Account with the third respondent Bank in Account No.009801000039374. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the first petitioner's husband late V.Krishnan had nominated the fourth respondent as nominee only for Bank Savings Account No.009801000039374 with the third respondent Bank. It is submitted that Savings Account No.009801000039374 was opened with the third respondent Bank, when the petitioner's husband late V.Krishnan took employment and was bachelor.
4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would submit that after the death of the first petitioner's husband V.Krishnan on 06.04.2019, the first petitioner had sent a letter to the Revenue Authorities stating that the first petitioner's husband died under mysterious circumstances and that the petitioners were not informed that the first petitioner's husband had died on 06.04.2019.
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 3 of 20 W.P.(MD) No.23739 of 2019
5. The petitioners further submit that the first petitioner had obtained legal heir certificate from the jurisdictional Tahsildar, Chennai, which came to be challenged by the fourth respondent in W.P.(MD) No. 7018 of 2021, wherein, the marital status of the first petitioner with the late.V.Krishnan, the brother of the fourth respondent was challenged.
6. The said Writ Petition was argued at length and was thereafter disposed of on 22.03.2024, wherein, following the decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in P.Venkatachalam and others Vs. The Tahsildar, 2022(4) CTC 1, this Court had rejected the prayer of the fourth respondent to quash the legal heir certificate issued to the petitioners on 22.10.2019.
7. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the issue is no longer res integra and would draw attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Chander Talwar Vs. Devender Kumar Talwar, (2010) 10 SCC 671 which was followed by this Court in its order dated 24.07.2020 in W.P.No.31608 of 2015. ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 4 of 20 W.P.(MD) No.23739 of 2019
8. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would also draw attention to the another decision of this Court dated 08.09.2016 rendered in P.Panchali Vs. The Chief Engineer and others, in W.P.(MD) No. 10748 of 2016.
9. Finally, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the law has now been further clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shakti Yezdani and another Vs. Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar and others, 2024 (1) CTC 60, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had stated as under:-
“26.A consistent view appears to have been taken by the courts, while interpreting the related provisions of nomination under different statutes. It is clear from the referred judgments that the nomination so made would not lead to the nominee attaining absolute title over the subject property for which such nomination was made. In other words, the usual mode of succession is not to be impacted by such nomination. The legal heirs therefore have not been excluded by virtue of nomination.
.........
40.In Sarbati Devi (supra) this Court held that nomination under S. 39 of the Life Insurance Act, 1938 does not contemplate a third line of succession styled as a ‘statutory testament’ and Page 38 of 43 any amount paid to a nominee on the policy holder’s death forms a part of the estate of the deceased policy ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 5 of 20 W.P.(MD) No.23739 of 2019 holder and devolves upon his/her heirs, as per testamentary or intestate succession. Further, in Ram Chander Talwar (supra), while discussing the rights of a nominee of a deceased depositor (S. 45-ZA(2) Banking Regulation Act, 1949), this court concluded that the right to receive the money lying in the depositor’s account was to be conferred on the nominee but the nominee would not become the owner of such deposits. The said deposit is a part of the deceased depositor’s estate and is subject to the laws of succession, that governs the depositor.
..........
43.Consistent interpretation is given by courts on the question of nomination, i.e., upon the holder’s death, the nominee would not get an absolute title to the subject matter of nomination, and those would apply to the Companies Act, 1956 (pari materia provisions in Companies Act, 2013) and the Depositories Act, 1996 as well.”
10. The learned Senior Counsel would therefore submit that as a nominee of the deceased husband of the first petitioner namely late V.Krishnan, the fourth respondent cannot appropriate the amount. It is submitted that the fourth respondent was merely in the position of the trustee of her deceased brother late V.Krishnan i.e., husband of the first petitioner and has to transfer the amount to the legal heirs, namely the petitioners herein, who have obtained the legal heirs certificate from the jurisdictional Tahsildar on 22.10.2019.
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 6 of 20 W.P.(MD) No.23739 of 2019
11. During the interregnum, the petitioners had sent a request to the first to third respondents not to transfer any amount lying in the aforesaid Account to the fourth respondent. However, on 21.06.2019, the amount that was lying in the above mentioned Account was transferred to the fourth respondent.
12. The learned counsel for the Bank would however submit that the amount was freezed by the second respondent, Indian Overseas Bank, Aruppukottai Branch.
13. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent would submit that there is no merits in the present writ petition, inasmuch as the fourth respondent's brother, V.Krishnan, was a bachelor. It is submitted that even as per the service records, he has been shown as a bachelor and not as a married person.
14. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent would further submit that the petitioners have taken advantage of the confusion created by stating that V.Krishnan @ Srinivasan are one and the same. That apart, it is submitted that the fourth respondent is an unmarried sister of the ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 7 of 20 W.P.(MD) No.23739 of 2019 deceased V.Krishnan and after the retirement of late V.Krishnan, the said late V.Krishnan was living with her and taking care of her, as she had no other means of income.
15. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent would submit that it is for the petitioners to file a suit to declare that the petitioners are the legally wedded wife and the son of the deceased V.Krishnan and no reliance can be placed on the legal heirs certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Chennai.
16. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent would further submit that the amount, which was frozen in the fourth respondent's account, should be de-freezed and the amount may be allowed to be utilized by the fourth respondent, who is the dependent on the aforesaid savings left by her brother.
17. It is submitted that the fourth respondent's name has also been given as nominee in the bank passbook and that the fourth respondent's brother late.V.Krishnan was a confirmed bachelor as the per Records maintained by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 8 of 20 W.P.(MD) No.23739 of 2019
18. In the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent, the fourth respondent has stated that the fourth respondent's brother late V.Krishnan was never married during his lifetime and that it was only during the police enquiry, the fourth respondent came to know that the first petitioner belongs to a different community and she has not produced any documents to prover her marital status as well as the fact that the second petitioner was born through the fourth respondent's brother late V.Krishnan.
19. It is the further case of the fourth respondent that after the retirement, the fourth respondent's brother late V.Krishnan stayed in a Mansion in Triplicane, Chennai that is the address mentioned in his Service Records and that the fourth respondent's brother had never forgotten to come to Aruppukottai and used to stay with the fourth respondent and he was also taking care of all medical and personal expenses of the fourth respondent.
20. It is submitted that the first petitioner has managed to get legal heir certificate from the Tahsildar, Egmore, Chennai without any factual basis which was also challenged by the fourth respondent in W.P.(MD) ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 9 of 20 W.P.(MD) No.23739 of 2019 No.7018 of 2021 on the ground that the mandatory documents were not produced by the first petitioner before getting the aforesaid legal heir certificate and that the same was fabricated document. It is submitted that the challenge to the legal heir certificate granted by the Tahsildar, Egmore, Chennai vide Certificate No.TN-7201908261278 was unfortunately dismissed by this Court on 22.03.2024
21. It is submitted that against the dismissal order dated 22.03.2024 in W.P.(MD) No.7018 of 2021, the fourth respondent has filed an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD) No.1020 of 2024. It is submitted that the said Writ Appeal was dismissed, at the stage of admission, with liberty to the petitioner to file a civil suit to establish that the petitioners are neither wife nor the child of the fourth respondent's brother late V.Krishnan. It is submitted that the order of the said Writ Appeal has not been still uploaded in the website of this Court and therefore, no appeal has been filed till date.
22. It is submitted that applying Section 14 of the Limitation Act, such suit cannot be said to be time barred at this distant point of time, although the cause of action had arisen on 06.04.2019 when the fourth ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 10 of 20 W.P.(MD) No.23739 of 2019 respondent's brother died. It is further submitted that from the Account maintained by the deceased V.Krishnan with the Indian Overseas Bank at Triplicane Branch, Chennai, the amount was immediately transferred on 21.06.2019 to the fourth respondent's Bank Account and that the fourth respondent has withdrawn the entire amount and a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and was invested in a Fixed Deposit. It is therefore submitted that there is no merits in this Writ Petition and this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
23. By way of rejoinder, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would draw the attention to several documents, including the Passport, wherein the name of the first petitioner has been shown as the legally wedded wife of the deceased V.Krishnan. The learned Senior Counsel would also draw the attention to the applications filed before the Civil Supplies Authorities for issuance of Ration Card and for Voter's Identity Card and a declaration filed by the deceased V.Krishnan [the husband of the first petitioner] on 13.10.1992, wherein the deceased has admitted that he got married to the first petitioner on 29.08.1979 and that he has a son [the second petitioner herein], aged about 8 years as on 13.10.1992.
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 11 of 20 W.P.(MD) No.23739 of 2019
24. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has further drawn attention to the additional typed set of papers filed by the petitioner on 24.07.2024 after the case was part-heard and taken up for hearing afresh, wherein, the following documents have been enclosed:-
i. Form No.6 submitted by the deceased Krishnan to declare the petitioners as legal heirs in Egmore Constituency, dated 13.04.2006. ii. Form of Receipt submitted to LIC by the first petitioner witnessed by the deceased husband Krishnan dated 17.04.2007.
iii. Settlement of Claim by Canara Bank, Triplicane Branch in favour of the petitioners dated 22.01.2021.
iv. Consent Letter for receipt of compensation from SIPCOT, Sriperumpudur to the first petitioner. v. Letter from TNEB to Indian Overseas Bank, Triplicane Branch to recredit the pension payment of deceased Krishnan dated 14.06.2021.
vi. Letter from Deputy Secretary, TANGEDCO, to the first petitioner seeking documents for sanction of family pension dated 01.02.2022.
vii.Order passed in E.A.No.5 of 2021 in E.P.No.850 of 2016 in O.S.No.7671 of 2011 in respect of the amount lying with Bank of India dated 05.06.2023. ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 12 of 20 W.P.(MD) No.23739 of 2019
25. It is submitted that in the documents mentioned above, the name of the first petitioner has been mentioned as wife of the late V.Krishnan and the second petitioner's name has been given as son of late V.Krishnan. It is submitted that there is no dispute in any of the proceeding in respect of the above documents that the petitioners are not legally wedded wife and the son of the late V.Krsihnan, the brother of the fourth respondent.
26. The learned Senior Counsel has also brought the attention to the sale deed, dated 21.06.2002 executed by one V.S.Parthasarathy in favour of the first petitioner, wherein the status of the first petitioner has been shown as ''wife of late V.Krishnan''. It is submitted that in the light of the overwhelming records that are available, it is unnecessary for the petitioners to be put under trouble by a nominee, who is merely a Trustee.
27. The learned Standing Counsel for the first to third respondents would draw attention to Section 45-ZA (4) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and by exercising the discretion vested with the Bank, the amount was transferred on 21.06.2019.
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 13 of 20 W.P.(MD) No.23739 of 2019
28. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank would further submit that although in Paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that on receipt of communication from the petitioners, the bank account of the fourth respondent was frozen on 22.06.2019. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank, on instructions, submits that a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was withdrawn on 02.01.2024 and that a sum of Rs.7,83,000/- remains in the account of the fourth respondent, which has been frozen and that a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was invested by the fourth respondent in a Fixed Deposit from and out of Rs.20,94,498.50.
29. The learned Standing Counsel for the first to third respondents has also drawn the attention to the communication dated 08.02.2021 sent by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to the fourth respondent, wherein, it has been stated as follows:-
ghHitapy; ngwg;gl;l fbjj;jpy; Nfl;Ls;s FLk;g ey ghJfhg;G epjp ngWtjw;F fPo;fz;l Mtzq;fs; Nfhug;gLfpd;wd.
1. kuGhpikr; rhd;W ePjpkd;wj;jpy; ,Ue;J ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 14 of 20 W.P.(MD) No.23739 of 2019 ngwg;gl Ntz;Lk;.
2. mry; thhpR rhd;wpjo;
,it fpilf;fg; ngw;w gpd;dNu jq;fsJ kD kPJ eltbf;if vLf;f ,aYk; vd njhpag;gLj;jg;gLfpwJ.
30. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the first to third respondents and the learned counsel for the fourth petitioner.
31. I have also considered the decisions cited by the learned Senior Count for the petitioner. I have also gone through the volumes that have been produced before this Court. I have also considered the order passed by this Court on 22.03.2024 in W.P.(MD) No.7018 of 2021 filed by the fourth respondent against the Tahsildar, Egmore Taluk, Chennai District for issuing the Legal Heir Certificate No.TN-7201908261278, dated 22.10.2019.
32. The overall facts and circumstance of the case indicate that the first petitioner and the fourth respondent belong to different communities and therefore, the marriage between the first petitioner and the fourth ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 15 of 20 W.P.(MD) No.23739 of 2019 respondent's brother late V.Krishnan was not accepted by the family of the fourth respondent i.e., the family of late V.Krishnan and therefore, the status of the first petitioner as the wife of late V.Krishnan and the status of the second petitioner as son of late V.Krishnan born to the first petitioner and late V.Krishnan (brother of the fourth respondent) have not been acknowledged by the fourth respondent.
33. The dispute in the present case is confined to the amounts that were in the Savings Account opened by the late V.Krishnan with the third respondent, the Triplicane Branch of the Indian Overseas Bank, at the time when he joined the service of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. It is not clear as to when the late V.Krishnan joined service with Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. It is assumed that at the time when the late V.Krishnan had joined service of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, he was a bachelor and therefore, while opening the account with the third respondent Bank, he would have given the name of the fourth respondent as the nominee.
34. Obviously, at that time, the petitioners were not there. After joining the service, it appears that the first petitioner married late V.Krishnan on 29.08.1979. Out of their union and wedlock, the second ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 16 of 20 W.P.(MD) No.23739 of 2019 petitioner was born to them.
35. The records that are available before this Court overwhelming indicate that indeed, the petitioners are only the Class-1 legal heirs of the late V.Krishnan. They are therefore entitled to succeed to the estate of the late V.Krishnan. The fourth respondent was only a nominee and held the amounts in the Bank only as trustee. The amount that was initially transferred to the fourth respondent has also been reverted back to the Bank/freezed.
36. It is also noticed that the challenge to the legal heir certificate dated 22.10.2019 issued by the Tahsildar, Egmore Taluk in his proceedings dated 19.06.2019 bearing Mu.Muu.No.1056/2019 has also attained finality, at this stage with the dismissal of W.P.(MD) No.7018 of 2021 vide order dated 22.03.2024. W.A.(MD) No.1020 of 2024 filed by the fourth respondent against the order dated 22.03.2024 in W.P.(MD) No.7018 of 2021 has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court on 18.06.2024.
37. Although the order has not been uploaded in the official website ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 17 of 20 W.P.(MD) No.23739 of 2019 of this Court, it was brought to the knowledge of this Court that the fourth respondent has been given a liberty to workout the remedy before the Civil Court in the manner known to law.
38. Therefore, the fourth respondent cannot, as a matter of right, interfere with the rights of the petitioner to succeed to the estate of her deceased brother late V.Krishnan who is the husband of the first petitioner and the father of the second petitioner.
39. As such, this Writ Petition has to be allowed in the light of the above discussion and overwhelming the evidences that are available on the files of this Court.
40. The first to third respondents Bank are therefore directed to transfer the amounts to the petitioners immediately. Needless to state, it will be without prejudice to the rights of the fourth respondent in the proposed suit to be filed pursuant to the order dated 18.06.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A. (MD) No.1020 of 2024.
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 18 of 20 W.P.(MD) No.23739 of 2019
41. In the result, this Writ Petition stands allowed with the above observations. No costs.
25.07.2024 Index: Yes / No Neutral Citation: Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order MM / SMN-2 / JEN Copy To:
1.The Regional Manager, Regional Office, M/s.Indian Overseas Bank Plot No. 40, 80 Feet Road, Arignar Anna Nagar, Madurai-20.
2.The Chief Manager, M/s.Indian Overseas Bank 310, B6 and B7 Sunder Complex, 1st Floor, Tiruchuli Road, Aruppukottai-626101.
3.The Chief Manager, M/s.Indian Overseas Bank, 203, Triplicane High Road, Next to Triplicane Post Office, Triplicane, Chennai-5.
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 19 of 20 W.P.(MD) No.23739 of 2019 C.SARAVANAN, J.
JEN W.P.(MD) No.23739 of 2019 25.07.2024 ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 20 of 20