PADMANABHAN BHAVANI Vs. GOVINDAN BHARGAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE principal question in this appeal by the defendants in a suit for partition is whether a residential building which stands on item 1 belongs exclusively to the first defendant or is available for partition. Items 1 to 6 (subject to the controversy about this building)admittedly belonged to one Sadanandan, son of the second plaintiff and husband of the first defendant and father of defendants 2 to 4. He died on February 31962, leaving the second plaintiff and the defendants as his heirs, each being entitled to 1/5th share. By Ext P1 dated June 3, 1966 the second plaintiff made a gift of her I/ 5th share to her daughter the first plaintiff. In 1967 they brought this suit for partition. Sadanandan had a Post Office Savings Bank account evidenced by the Pass Book Ext. D9. This was converted into a joint account in the names of himself and the first defendant in 1959. At the time of his death, the account stood at Rs. 16,594. 15 and by May 1965, all this had been withdrawn by the first defendant, leaving a balance of Rs. 70. 17, as is disclosed by the fresh Pass Book (Ext. D9 (a)) issued in lieu of Ext. D9. THE first defendant had contended that the disputed building was constructed by her after Sadanandan's death, utilising part of the bank deposit supplemented by the contributions made by her father and brother. As to the bank deposit itself she pleaded that it had been gifted to her by Sadanandan and that it belonged to her exclusively. THE courts below did not accept the case of alleged gift or contribution by the father and brother and they agreed in finding that the building was constructed with the postal savings money which devolved on all the heirs on Sadanandan's death and that the building was hence liable to partition.

(2.) THE law relating to joint deposits or either or survivor accounts is well settled by judicial decisions and it would be enough to refer to a few of them. In Guran Ditta v. T. Ram Ditta, AIR. 1928 P. C. 172, which is the leading case, one Teku Ram opened a deposit account in the name of himself and his wife "payable to either or survivor". After Teku ram's death, his wife renewed the deposit for a period of one year and later she withdrew the amount and interest. In the suit which was brought by the eldest son the principal question was whether this amount was part of the estate of Teku Ram to whom it originally belonged or whether it passed to his wife on the terms of the deposit note. THE Privy Council observed: "the general principle of equity, applicable both in this country and in India, is that in the case of a voluntary conveyance of property by a grantor, without any declaration of trust, there is a resulting trust in favour of the grantor, unless it can be proved that an actual gift was intended. An exception has, however, been made in English law, and a gift to a wife is presumed, where money belonging to the husband is deposited at a Bank in the name of a wife, or, where a deposit is made, in the joint names of both husband and wife. This exception has not been admitted in Indian law under the different conditions which attach to family life and where the social relationships are of an essentially different character. " Applying this principle, their Lordships held that there was no presumption in the deposit note of an intended advancement in favour of the wife and that the sum and interest were the property of Teku Ram and remained at his disposal at the date of his death.

(3.) IN view of these pronouncements, a brief reference alone is necessary to the following cases which were also cited at the bar Mrs. Cowdrey v. Imperial Bank of INdia, AIR. 1956 Madras 56, and Nagarajamma v. State Bank of INdia, AIR. 1961 A. P. 320. IN AIR. 1956 Madras 56. one Mrs. Jones, converted a sole account into a joint either or survivor account in the name of herself and one Mrs. Folkes. On her death Mrs. Folkes claimed the balance at the credit of this account and the claim was resisted by the residuary legatee under the will of Mrs. Jones. The High Court held on the evidence that Mrs. Jones intended that the amount should go on her death to mrs. Folkes and that was the idea of converting the sole account into the joint either survivor account. IN view of this finding their Lordships observed that there was little scope for legal argument, although they quoted the general principle of law laid down in AIR. 1928 P. C. 172. IN AIR. 1961 A. P. 320 one ramaswamy deposited Rs. 10,000/-in the joint names of himself and his concubine, who was the appellant, payable to either or survivor. After ramaswamy's death, the appellant claimed the balance at the credit of the account on the ground that he had intended to make a gift of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- to her. It was held that the appellant had not discharged the onus which was on her of proving the gift and that the mere fact that the deposit was made in the joint names does not lead to the conclusion that Ramaswamy gifted the amount to her. The learned judge followed AIR. 1928 P. C. 172 and AIR. 1945 P. C. 10. On appeal, a Division Bench (AIR. 1962 A. P. 260) confirmed the decision in AIR. 1961 A. P. 320. It might be mentioned that AIR. 1956 Madras 56 and AIR. 1962 A. P. 260 were approved by the Supreme Court in the decision already cited.