ADARSH KANT KAPOOR Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE background to this application is that the aforementioned suit has been filed by the Plaintiff Dr. Adarsh Kant Kapoor against State Bank of India, Vikas Puri Branch, New Delhi (Defendant No. 1) and his mother Smt. Shakuntala Kapoor (Defendant No. 2) seeking a recovery of Rs. 33,14,388 along with pendente lite and future interest at the maximum legally permissible rate or at the discretion of the Court. Initially filed as a summary suit, it was later converted into regular suit by an order dated 20th November 2012.

(2.) THE Plaintiff's father died in 1979 after which his mother, Defendant No. 2, started receiving the monthly pension of the Plaintiff's father. It is stated that the pension amount was directly deposited into an account with Defendant No.1, SBI. The Plaintiff's case is that his mother has no other source of income except the said pension amount. The Plaintiff states that he is living in USA since 1989. The Plaintiff is stated to have sent his personal money in the sum of $1,04,985 to his NRE savings bank account with the SBI Main Branch on 16th January 2009. It is stated that SBI credited a sum of Rs. 50,97,547 to his account after converting the dollars into rupees at the prevalent exchange rate. The Plaintiff states that by a letter dated 16th January 2009, he issued a cheque for Rs. 25 lakhs from the aforementioned NRE savings bank account to the Defendant No. 1, SBI, for purchase of five fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of Rs. 5 lakhs each in the joint names of himself and Defendant No. 2 with 'either or survivor' mode of operation. The Plaintiff states that by a letter dated 14th February 2009, SBI delivered five FDRs of Rs. 5 lakhs each of that date to the Plaintiff at his US address. The FDRs were effective from 30th January 2009 with the maturity date of 27th January 2011.

(3.) IN her written statement, Defendant No. 2 states that she is a widow and an illiterate lady aged 85 years. According to her, the Plaintiff being her son was legally and morally bound to maintain her. Instead he was claiming her monies lying in various banks in the joint names of herself and the Plaintiff. She states that the Plaintiff, using undue influence and fraud, sold the property of Defendant No. 2 at Tagore Garden in the year 1996-97 for a total consideration of Rs.40 lakhs and thereafter invested it in various banks. Defendant No.2 has refuted the claim of the Plaintiff that the above property was bequeathed to him by his maternal grandfather. According to Defendant No. 2, the Plaintiff assured her that her entire money was deposited in banks by way of FDRs in her name and upon maturity she would get the entire money. Believing the Plaintiff, Defendant No. 2 is stated to have entrusted her lifelong savings to him. In para 4 of the written statement, Defendant No.2 states that the Plaintiff has, in his cross examination in a connected Suit No. 66 of 2012, admitted to having withdrawn Rs. 10 lakhs from the HDFC Bank which had the joint FDRs of Defendant No. 2 and the Plaintiff. Defendant No.2 states that the Plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the five FDRs which form the subject matter of the present suit. Defendant No. 2 states that in order to harass her, the Plaintiff has filed Civil Suit No. 121 of 2012 before the Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi claiming damages against her in the sum of Rs. 1 lakh. Defendant No. 2 further states that her signatures on the General Power of Attorney filed by the Plaintiff along with the plaint have been forged by the Plaintiff.