Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14.3 The Appellant has thus raised triable issues and is granted leave to defend the case for the amounts of Rs.1,36,35,000/- and Rs.50,00,000/- with interest thereon, in accordance with law.

15. However, so far as concerns the encashment of the FDR of Rs.1,12,19,339/- by the Appellant from the bank account of the Deceased, this was done on 02.01.2009, which is admittedly after his demise. The Appellant has stated that the FDR was encashed by the Appellant as he was the nominee of the Deceased in terms of the FDR. 15.1 The Supreme Court in Ram Chander Talwar and Anr. Vs. Devender Kumar Talwar and Others5, has while interpreting subsection (2) of Section 45ZA of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 has held that nominee only steps into the shoes of the depositor after his death, however, he does not become the owner of the money lying therein as follows:

"5. Section 45ZA(2) merely puts the nominee in the shoes of the depositor after his death and clothes him with the exclusive right to receive the money lying in the account. It gives him all the rights of the depositor so far as the depositor's account is concerned. But it by no stretch of imagination makes the nominee the owner of the money lying in the account. It needs to be remembered that the Banking Regulation Act is enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to banking. It is in no way concerned with the question of succession. All the monies receivable by the nominee by virtue of section 45 ZA(2) would, therefore, form part of the estate of the deceased depositor and devolve according to the rule of succession to which the depositor may be governed."