U BHASKARAN Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Appeal is filed by the plaintiff having aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 5.2.1999 in C.S.No.221/1997.

(2.) THE plaintiff married one Jansi Rani, who was originally married to Ramesh and gave birth to two sons, who are defendants 2 and 3. THE said Ramesh died in a road accident and the plaintiff married Jansi Rani on 21.2.1994. According to the plaintiff, his father borrowed money from the 1st defendant-bank and when the plaintiff wanted to settle the said demand made from the 1st defendant-bank, the bank insisted the plaintiff to deposit a sum of Rs.5 lakhs in the bank and so he made such deposit, in a short term deposit, on 30.3.1994, but in the name of his deceased wife Jansi Rani. On 13.5.1994 she committed suicide and thereby she died. When the plaintiff tried to withdraw the money from the 1st defendant-bank, the bank insisted the plaintiff to produce succession certificate and so the plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.221/1997 for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,22,000/- with future interest at 18% from the date of plaint till date of realisation and for per permanent injunction to restrain the 1st defendant from disbursing the deposit No.SDR 50/1151, dated 30.3.1994, in the name of Jansi Rani, without reference to the claim of the plaintiff.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants 2 and 3 submitted that the appellant/plaintiff has not established the motive for creating benami transaction in the name of his wife. According to him, even if the 1st respondent/defendant-bank wanted security, the said amount of Rs.5 lakhs, if it is of the plaintiff, he should have deposited the same in his name. Learned counsel referring to the chief-examination of P.W.1/plaintiff, submitted that the stand now taken that the said amount of Rs.5 lakhs was paid from out of the sale consideration is only an afterthought and no such plea was raised at the first instance either in the plaint or in the chief-examination and the plea that the said amount of Rs.5 lakhs was deposited from out of the said sale consideration was taken only in the chief-examination, when the plaintiff was recalled on 25.1.1999 after cross-examination was over, for the first time. Learned counsel also pointed out that even the copy of Ex.A6 series, namely, the sale deeds were not marked along with the plaint and they were marked, only after cross-examination was over, as stated above. Learned counsel further submitted that appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that the deceased Jansi Rani was having source to deposit the said amount, and, in this Appeal, even if any other conclusion is possible, this Court may not take such a view and so the said findings of the learned Judge need not be interfered with. Learned counsel referred to the evidence of P.W.1, wherein P.W.1 stated that Ex.A6 series, the sale deeds, have been executed by the members of his family only for discharging the debts of the plaintiff's father. Learned counsel further referred to the evidence of D.W.1, the father of the deceased Jansi Rani, who has stated that his daughter, Jansi Rani told him that the said amount of Rs.5 lakhs was deposited by herself and by the plaintiff.