DASARI PULLAMMA Vs. ANDHRA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dasari Pullamma, who is the sister of one late Pulla Reddy filed the present Writ Petition questioning the action of the respondents 1 and 2/Andhra Bank in refusing to pay a sum of Rs.1,35,845.00 along with interest accrued thereon lying in the Savings Bank Account No.13738 of Ankalamma who is the wife of Pulla Reddy as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition would show that one late Pulla Reddy, who was an employee in M/s. Ramakrishna Chemicals at Y.S.R. District, died on 02.11.2000. The said Pulla Reddy had no issues and his wife by name Ankalamma received the entire death-cum-retirement benefits to a tune of Rs.1,50,000.00. Out of the said amount, Ankalamma deposited an amount of Rs.1,05,845.00 with second respondent/Andhra Bank, Tadipatri Branch in Savings Account No.13738. On 22.01.2001 Ankalamma died. The petitioner, who claims to be the only successor to her brother/Pulla Reddy and sister-in-law/Ankalamma approached the Zonal Office of the said Bank at Kurnool to settle the claim. Since they were postponing the issue on one pretext or the other, she got issued a legal notice on 30.01.2001 through his Advocate at Kadapa for settlement of the clailm. A reply to the said notice came to be issued in the month of June, 2001 stating that the 3rd respondent herein, who is the brother of said Ankalamma, is also claiming right over the said amount. Since there were two rival claimants, it was stated that the said amount could not be paid to any of the parties and accordingly advised the petitioner to get a declaration from the competent court of law to enable the Bank to settle the clailm. In view of the averments in the reply notice, the petitioner herein filed S.O.P. No.6 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, seeking issuance of succession certificate for an amount of Rs.1,35,845.00. The said O.P. was contested by the 3rd respondent and the Court after conducting a full-fledged trial allowed the same vide decree dated 24.06.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the 3rd respondent filed an appeal i.e., A.S. No.38 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kadapa, which was dismissed on 30.09.2009. Later, C.R.P. No.418 of 2010 was filed before this Honourable court and the same was also dismissed on 19.04.2010. After disposal of the C.R.P., the petitioner herein is said to have produced the succession certificate along with judgment and decree passed by the court, requesting respondents No.1 and 2 to settle the claim in her favour. Since there was no action on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner got issued a legal notice dated 01.08.2011 calling upon the 2nd respondent to settle the claim within a week from the date of receipt of the notice. A reply to the notice dated 20.09.2011 came to be issued stating that the Bank was constrained to settle the claim in favour of nominee of the deceased Ankalamma since there was no response from the petitioner for nearly three years as per Bank Rules and as per law for the time being in force. Challenging the said action of the respondents in settling the claim in favour of the 3rd respondent, the present Writ Petition is filed.

(3.) Though notice was served on 3rd respondent there is no response from him. The respondents 1 and 2 filed their counter denying the averments made in the writ petition. It is their case that the deceased Ankalamma who was a Saving Bank holder in their Branch nominated the 3rd respondent as the nominee for the said account. Since there was no communication to the Bank after the reply notice dated 04.06.2001, the Bank was constrained to settle the claim in favour of the nominee of the deceased. It is further stated that under Sec. 45 ZA of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, only the nominee would be entitled to all the rights of the sole depositor unless the same is varied or cancelled in prescribed manner. In view of the above, it is said that the relief sought for in the Writ Petition cannot be granted.