ARNAB KUMAR SARKAR Vs. REBA MUKHARJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After having read the draft judgment prepared by my learned Brother I could not to the best of my ability, come to findings and conclusion different from what my learned brother has done. I, therefore, endorse my full agreement with the conclusion arrived at by His Lordship, in my own words as follows :

(2.) One Nirmala Sarkar, since deceased, originally brought this suit against appellant Arnab, and State Bank of India, Calcutta Main Branch Office, for declaration that she was entitled to all the moneys lying with the Bank above (Defendant No.2) in the Fixed Deposit Accounts and Savings Bank Account kept by his son Ashoke who died intestate. The suit was contested by the first defendant, Appellant, Arnab, who filed written statement through his father being his Constituted Attorney, Amit Sarkar. Admitted position in the case is that, Ashoke at the time of his death was bachelor and he duly and lawfully during his lifetime nominated appellant after his death to receive all the monies lying with the second defendant under the provisions of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereinafter Bank Act in short). Appellant is the nephew (younger brother's son) of Ashoke, since deceased. During pendency of the suit Nirmala died intestate and consequently Reba and Rina came in the records of suit and became substituted plaintiffs to continue with the action. Several issues were framed however the trial appears to have been conducted basically on two issues in substance :-

(3.) Two witnesses on behalf of both the contesting parties were examined even though evidence in true and practical sense was not warranted. The learned trial Judge granted declaratory decree that the present plaintiffs are entitled to all the money lying with the defendant No. 2, Bank to the credit of the deceased Ashoke Kumar Sarkar in the F.D. A/c. and Savings A/c as described in the schedule A of this plaint together with interest therein till date of payment and further the defendant No. 1/Appellant has no right, title and interest in respect of the same. Speaking for myself the findings and reasoning recorded by the learned trial Judge appear to me to be so confusing and incomprehensible that it deserved to be set aside, but for ultimate conclusion arrived at by him.