KINKAR SANTANANDA SANYASI Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this case for issuing a writ of mandamus to the opp. parties 1 and 2 as to why the amount lying in deposit to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- shall not be given to him.

(2.) The facts leading to the writ petition are as follows : One Charubala Das, the deceased-mother of the opp. Party No. 3 had maintained a term deposit account with the opp. party No. 1. It is alleged that she renounced the world and wanted to donate the aforesaid money to the math after her death. Accordingly the testatrix had executed a Will in favour of Shri Bithal Ramanuj disciple of Shri Sitaram Das Onkar Nath.

(3.) The aforesaid amounts were kept in deposit in joint names, i.e. the name of the petitioner and late Charubala Das in savings Bank account bearing No. 83/3851 SBD and in term deposit bearing receipt No. TD/A/3 132328 for a sum of Rs.56,552/- vide Annexure-1 series. It is further alleged that the opp. party No. 3, the only son of the deceased Charubala Das driven her out of the house, as a reason whereof she took shelter in the petitioners' institution and became a disciple of Guru Sitaram Das Onkar Nath. Out of love, devotion and also for public good, she decided to donate the entire savings to the Ashram. Accordingly, she executed her last Will in favour of the petitioner. Charubala Das died on 30-12-1993. After her demise, the petitioner who is the chela of Guru Sitaram Das Onkar Nath approached to the opp. party No. 1 for encashment of the deposits. Although the petitioner made several requests to opp. party No. 1, but when all such requests did not evoked any response, therefore, the petitioner had filed a claim before the District Redressal Consumers' Forum. But the claim was however rejected by the consumer Redressal Forum, as a reason whereof, he filed this present case. The opp. party No. 1 has filed counter. In the counter, it is although admitted that late Charubala Das had kept a deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/-, but it is denied that she had executed a Will in favour of the petitioner. The amount lying in deposit could not be disbursed to the petitioner inasmuch as there was a rival claim filed by one Gopal Chandra Das, son of late Charubala Das. The petitioner was asked to get the succession certificate. But he could not produce the same, on the contrary, when opp. party No. 3 produced the succession certificate, the Bank had no other option, but to release the amount in his favour. Accordingly the payment was made on 30/06/1998. After such payment, the opp. party nos. 1 and 2 could not do anything further nor they are necessary parties in this case.