LAWS(MPH)-2008-11-79

NIRMALA BAI Vs. NITYAGOPAL ALIAS PREMNARAYAM

Decided On November 19, 2008
NIRMALA BAI Appellant
V/S
NITYAGOPAL ALIAS PREMNARAYAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the order dated 2-3-2005 passed by the Court of Fourth Addl. District Judge, Gadarwara, district Narsinghpur, in Succession Case Nos. 2/03 and 3/03.

(2.) FOR the purposes of this appeal, the relevant pedegree is as follows:-<IMG>np_95_mpht2_2009.jpg</IMG>

(3.) FROM the pedegree, it is clear that Manaklal was earlier married to shanti Bai. After her death, Manaklal married to Ram Bai. Respondents are legal heirs of Shanti Bai, whereas, appellants are legal heirs of Ram Bai. During the life time of Manaklal, a fixed deposit account was opened in the name of ram Bai in the State Bank of India, Branch Saikheda, for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-bearing Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) No. SD/a-29-621380 with 18-1-2003 as maturity date. Maturity value was Rs. 1,04,642/ -. Ram Bai died on 26-12-2002. After her death, appellants approached the State Bank of India for claiming the amount of FDR since they were the legal heirs of deceased Ram Bai being her daughters. Respondents opposed the appellants on the ground that since the money was deposited by Manaklal, respondents being legal heirs of Manaklal, were entitled to half of the share in the amount of FDR. The bank authority asked the parties to obtain succession certificate from the Court. Accordingly, appellants submitted an application for issuance of succession certificate which was registered as Succession Case No. 2/03. Respondents also submitted an application for issuance of Succession Certificate in respect of half of the amount of FDR which was registered as Succession Case No. 3/03. After recording evidence, learned Addl. District Judge, Gadarwara, District narsinghpur passed the impugned order dated 2-3-2005 holding both the parties to be entitled to the succession certificate in respect of half of the amount of the FDR each. Aggrieved by the same, appellants have preferred the present miscellaneous Appeal.