UNION OF INDIA Vs. SARALA DHRUVAKUMAR SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 5.7.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing Special Civil Application No. 458 of 2001 challenging the decision of the appellants herein, i.e. Post Master General, Ahmedabad and Sub-Post Master, LG Hospital Road Post Office, Maninagar, Ahmedabad under the provisions of the Post Office Savings Account Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). The learned Single Judge held that the appellants were estopped from treating the account as a single holder account upon the death of the husband of the first petitioner.

(2.) The first respondent herein-original first petitioner and her late husband jointly invested Rs.2,04,000/- in the post office monthly income scheme on 15.11.1994. The second respondent herein - original second petitioner was shown as their nominee. When the husband of the first petitioner expired on 27.7.1995, an application was made by the first petitioner to substitute the name of the second petitioner vice his father - late husband of the first petitioner, as a joint holder with the first petitioner. Such application came to be granted by the appellants and the name of the second petitioner was shown as a joint holder alongwith the first petitioner. Accordingly, both the petitioners were shown as joint depositors and the investment became joint investment of both the petitioners. Somewhere thereafter in the year 1997, the petitioners further invested a sum of Rs.2,04,000/- in the said monthly income scheme account, as the upper limit for joint investment under the monthly income scheme was available upto Rs.4,08,000/-. The said deposit was also accepted and accordingly the petitioners' monthly income scheme amount in their joint names was having a total amount of Rs.4,08,000/-. The appellants continued to pay the petitioners monthly interest by crediting the same in their account for a period of three years. When the investment originally made by the first petitioner and her late husband on 15.11.1994 was due to mature on 15.11.2000, the second appellant through his letter dated 1.11.2000 raised an objection that when the husband of the first petitioner expired, the monthly income scheme account became a single holder account of the surviving depositor, i.e. of the first petitioner and, therefore, the joint monthly income scheme account of the first petitioner and her husband became a single holder account and, therefore, second monthly income scheme account No. 375386 was opened in contravention of Rule 4 of the Rules. The second appellant accordingly asked the first petitioner to close the account and obtain the amount lying at her credit. The petitioners objected to the said decision and made a representation. Since the appellants did not accept the said representation, the petitioners moved this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 458 of 2001 which came to be allowed by the judgment under appeal. That is why this Letters Patent Appeal.

(3.) We have heard Mr Bipin I Mehta, learned counsel for the appellants. The learned counsel submits that by virtue of operation of Note 4 below Rule 4, the joint account of the first petitioner and her late husband (opened on 15.11.1994) became a single holder account of the first petitioner upon the death of her husband on 27.7.1995. It is, therefore, submitted that the appellants were justified in taking the impugned decision to treat the account in question as a single holder account.