M. JAYABHARATHI Vs. ANDHRA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners and the Third Respondent are the daughters of the couple, viz., K. Nagabushanam and N. Lakshmi, who died in a road accident on 29.05.2016. The said K. Nagabushanam and N. Lakshmi had invested amounts aggregating to Rs.30,00,000/- each in fixed deposits with the First Respondent, viz., Andhra Bank, Sekarrajapuram Branch, Ranipet, which attained maturity on 31.08.2018. The Petitioners, as legal heirs succeeding to the estate of the deceased, made a claim for their two-thirds share in those fixed deposits from the First Respondent by legal notice dated 03.01.2019 through their Advocate with a copy sent to the Third Respondent. In response to that notice, the Third Respondent through her Advocate by Reply dated 04.02.2019 disputed the entitlement of the Petitioners to claim two-thirds share in those fixed deposits by complaining that the husband of the First Petitioner had misappropriated family funds to the tune of several lakhs by misusing ATM card of the deceased parents of the Petitioners and the Third Respondent, apart from contending that other joint family owned properties would also have to be taken into account for a comprehensive partition between the parties and informed that she was contemplating to institute a suit for partition before the jurisdictional Civil Court and in those circumstances, the authorities of the First Respondent were required to record the objection of the Third Respondent in releasing the amounts in the matured fixed deposits claimed by the Petitioners. The First Respondents was further warned that non-compliance of that instruction would be at the risk of facing action for damages.

(2.) Taking into consideration the rival claims of the Petitioners and the Third Respondent, the First Respondent through its Advocate, by Reply Notice dated 02.03.2019 conveyed that in view of the dispute between the parties and the statement made by the Third Respondent that she would be approaching the competent Court for necessary relief, either the Third Respondent or the Petitioners may get necessary direction from the appropriate Court as to the manner of dealing with the amounts under the matured fixed deposits and that the First Respondent was ready to obey the orders of the Court at any time. The Petitioners claim to have sent a rejoinder dated 14.03.2019 through their Advocate denying the allegations made against the husband of the First Respondent as well as the existence of other joint family properties and have filed this Writ Petition for a direction to the First and Second Respondents to settle the two-thirds share of the amounts under the matured fixed deposits together with the proportionate accrued monthly interest.

(3.) In response to the observations made by this Court that the nature of the dispute between the Petitioners and the Third Respondent, which is absolutely private in character and does not have any element of public law involved, could not be decided in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in ABL International Limited -vs- Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited [(2004) 3 SCC 553], in which it has been held that a Writ Petition involving serious disputed facts which requires consideration of evidence which is not on record, cannot be normally entertained by a Writ Court, but there is no absolute rule that in all cases involving disputed question of fact, the parties should be relegated to a civil suit. It is further contended by him that inasmuch as the First Respondent has only required a Court order for disbursing two-thirds share of the Petitioners in the matured fixed deposits, this Court has ample powers to issue necessary directions in this regard to the First Respondent notwithstanding the objections raised by the Third Respondent.