LAWS(KER)-2016-12-33

JOSE MATHAI Vs. TOMY MATHAI

Decided On December 01, 2016
Jose Mathai Appellant
V/S
Tomy Mathai Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 are the children of one Mathai Philippose who died on 19.9.2014. The wife of Mathai Philippose predeceased him. Ext.P1 is the heir- ship certificate of Mathai Philippose. As per Ext.P1, the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 are the legal representatives of Mathai Philippose. Mathai Philippose had a few fixed deposits in the third respondent co-operative Bank (the Bank), governed by the provisions of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act. The first respondent is the nominee of all the said fixed deposits. Consequently, when the petitioner approached the Bank for the proceeds of the fixed deposits on the death of his father, the Bank took the stand that the amounts will be disbursed only to the first respondent. According to the petitioner, there is no disposition in respect of the fixed deposits by Mathai Philippose during his life time and that therefore, he is entitled to one third share in the proceeds of the fixed deposits. It is also the case of the petitioner that he has, therefore, preferred a representation before the fourth respondent, the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies concerned, and the fourth respondent has directed the Bank to disburse the amounts to the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 in the light of Ext.P1 heir-ship certificate. Ext.P4 is the communication issued by the fourth respondent to the Bank in this connection. It is alleged in the writ petition that the Bank is not acting upon Ext.P4 direction issued by the fourth respondent. The petitioner, therefore, seeks directions to the Bank to disburse the one third share of the proceeds of the fixed deposits in the name of his deceased father.

(2.) Though notice was issued to respondents 1 and 2, there is no appearance for them.

(3.) The Bank has filed a counter affidavit. The stand taken by the Bank in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 have not approached the Bank together and that therefore, they are unable to comply with the direction contained in Ext.P4 communication issued by the fourth respondent.