SHRI M.L. JAGGI Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the Appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and decree dated 20.10.2008 passed by the learned trial court whereby the recovery suit filed by the Appellant was dismissed.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the present appeal are that the mother of the Appellant Smt. Wiran Bai Jaggi deposited a sum of Rs. 30,000/ - with the Respondent Bank by way of term deposit for 36 months. That Smt. Wiran Bai Jaggi expired on 5.3.1995 leaving behind the Appellant and Respondent No. 2 to 6 as her legal heirs. The case of the Appellant is that he came to know about the existence of the said FDR much later after the death of his mother and on coming to know about the same, he applied to the Respondent bank for its encashment but in vain. Consequently a legal notice dated 24.5.2004 was sent by the Appellant and in its reply the Respondent bank asked the Appellant to furnish some particulars. But even on complying with the requirements of the Bank, the bank did not take any steps for the encashment and, therefore, another legal notice dated 23.12.2004 was served by the Appellant but was not replied to by the bank. Consequently, the Appellant filed a suit for recovery which vide judgment and decree dated 20.20.2008 was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved with the same, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal.

(3.) OPPOSING the present appeal, counsel for the Respondent submits that the Bank had duly proved on record the statement of account of joint account No. 11276 which was opened in the joint names of late Smt. Wiran Bai Jaggi and Smt. Urmil Bhambri and in which account the interest, as was being accrued on the said FDR, was being credited quarterly. Counsel for the Respondent further submits that the FDR in question was renewed at the instance of late Smt. Wiran Bai Jaggi in the joint names of herself and Smt. Urmil Bhambri on 31.05.1994. Counsel further submits that Smt. Wiran Bai Jaggi had died on 05.03.1995 and Smt. Urmil Bhambri had approached the Bank for encashment of the said FDR and the Respondent -bank after completing all the formalities released the entire payment of the said FDR to her. Counsel further submits that Smt. Urmil Bhambri was the joint account holder with late Smt. Wiran Bai Jaggi and thus she was legally entitled to encash the amount of the said FDR as per the condition of the joint account being in favour of 'either or survivor'. Counsel thus states that with the payment of amount of the said FDR in favour of Smt. Urmil Bhambri, who was the only survivor of the said joint account, the Respondent bank rightly discharged its liability and after the payment of the said amount, the Appellant had no right to claim the said amount from the Respondent -bank. Counsel for the Appellant also submits that the Appellant also did not hand over the original FDR for the purpose of verification at the end of the Respondent -bank and moreover mere possession of the FDR alone would not give any special right to the Appellant to claim the amount of the FDR once the said FDR was renewed in the joint names of late Smt. Wiran Bai Jaggi and Smt. Urmil Bhambri.