Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. In the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Mr.Vellaichamy Vs. the District Manager, Virudhunagar District Central Co- operative Bank and others in W.A. (MD) No.256 of 2013, relied on by the second respondent, it has been held that a nominee is a custodian and the money that may be received by the nominee should be kept for the interest of others, who are otherwise legally entitled to and the nominee cannot claim ownership in the money lying in the account. The Single Judge of this Court in S.Sampath Vs. the Regional Manager, State Bank of India in W.P.No.26992 of 2017 has held that http://www.judis.nic.in  A.No.2468 of 2020 in O.P.953 of 2018 When there is nomination as per section 45ZA of Banking Regulation Act 1949, the bank has to release the amount to the nominee and allowed the writ petition. Similar view has been taken by the Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court in Dasari Pullamma Vs. Andhra Bank, rep. by its Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Kurnool, Kurnool District and two others reported in 2017 (1) BankJ 284 and by the Calcutta High Court in Communist Party of India (Marxist) Vs. United Bank of India and others reported in 2016 (4) WBLR 87.

12. In the judgment in Rama Chakravarty Vs. Punjab National Bank and others reported in 1991 (1) Cal. L.T. 324, the Calcutta High Court directed the bank to release the amount on the basis of the deposit. These cases will not help the respondent in any manner. Since in the above cases, the bank insisted for succession certificate in favour of the nominee, in such situation, the Court held that as long there is nomination, the bank is bound to release the amount to the nominee under section 45ZA of the Banking Regulation Act. The respondent also placed reliance on judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Employment Officer Vs. Sevarinathan reported in Indian Law Reports 1985 318, wherein the succession certificate is sought to be enforced under Order 21 C.P.C and the http://www.judis.nic.in  A.No.2468 of 2020 in O.P.953 of 2018 Karnataka High Court has held that succession certificate cannot be enforced since it is not a decree or Order within the meaning of the Civil Procedure Code. In the judgment of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court relied upon by the second respondent in Chandrasekharan Nair Vs. Union of India reported in 2007 (1) KHC 738, it has been held that the gift in contemplation of death made towards Chief Minister's Relief Fund is valid under section 191 of the Banking Regulation Act. There cannot be dispute at all with regard to the above aspect. Merely making such submissions at a later point of time without any proof. Such contention of the alleged gift is improbable and unbelievable and the gift cannot be presumed merely on the basis of some nomination.

15. After a copy of the succession certificate is sent to the first respondent, the Sundaram Finance has addressed a letter to the applicant herein admitting the legal position and requested her to furnish certain documents to pay the entire amount. Similarly, they have also addressed a letter to the second respondent http://www.judis.nic.in  A.No.2468 of 2020 in O.P.953 of 2018 indicating the legal position of nominees versus successor to the estate of the deceased and categorically said that the right of a legal heir cannot be usurped by the nominee, since the nomination can neither displace the laws of succession nor substitute a Will and relying on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, the Sundaram Finance has categorically stated in the letter addressed to the second respondent that nominee does not obtain any absolute title to the property. Thereafter, though a reply was sent by the second respondent on 15.05.2019, in the above letter the contention raised by the second respondent was to the effect that the succession certificate was obtained without impleading him and further he has reiterated his right to receive the fixed deposit only as per the Section 45ZA of the Banking Regulation Act and again requested the first respondent to release the amount to him as a nominee. This letter is more relevant to appreciate the contention of the parties. In the above letter sent on 15.05.2019, there is no whisper as to the oral gift of the so called money as pleaded subsequently in the counter dated 04.10.2020 in the writ petitions. If really there was a oral gift or gift as per Section 191 of the Indian Succession Act what should have been conduct of the parties. At the very inception itself he should have informed the same to the bank or to the first respondent at the earliest point of http://www.judis.nic.in  A.No.2468 of 2020 in O.P.953 of 2018 time.

17. As far as Section 45ZA of the Banking Regulation Act is concerned, the above section indicate that the amount shall be paid to the nominee. It is also to be noted that Section 45ZD makes it clear that when there is an Order or a certificate or other authority from a Court obtained relating to such article is produced before the bank, the bank shall take due note of such decree, Order, certificate or other authority. Therefore, it cannot be said that even after the succession certificate is granted by the competent Court is produced before the bank, they cannot ignore the same merely on the basis of Section 45ZA of the Banking Regulations Act. Even though 45ZA contained non obstante clause, the http://www.judis.nic.in  A.No.2468 of 2020 in O.P.953 of 2018 Apex Court in Vishin N. Khanchandani Vs. Vidya Lachamandas Khanchandani reported in 2000 (6) SCC 724 in para 11 has categorically held that though the over riding effect of non obstante clause to attract the applicability of the phrase, the whole of the section, the scheme of the Act and the objects and reasons for which such an enactment is made have to kept in mind, as the nominee has to be treated as a trustee and he is entitled to receive the amount only and he has to pay the amount to the persons who are entitled under law of succession. Therefore, when the succession certificate already granted, the object of the Indian Succession Act has to be given importance. Accordingly, the contention that only the nominee alone as per section 45ZA of the Banking Regulations Act is entitled to receive the money even after succession certificate is granted, cannot be countenanced. Therefore, merely because a suit has been filed at a later point of time at the instance of the nominee, despite the succession certificate has been produced, the same has no relevance to decide this application. If at all the second respondent in the event of succeeding in the suit in O.S.No.5683 of 2019, to realise the amount, this Court is of the view that some security has to be offered by the applicant herein. The learned counsel for the applicant Mr.Mohan submitted that in C.S.No.899 of 2017 already 1/4th share of the applicant has been declared http://www.judis.nic.in  A.No.2468 of 2020 in O.P.953 of 2018 and preliminary decree is already passed and charge may be created in respect of the above 1/4th share of the applicant towards the deposit amount till the interpleader suit is decided.