DALIP KUMAR Vs. JAGDISH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred by defendant No.1- appellant challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 1/10/2016 passed by the Trial Court and the judgment and decree dtd. 18/12/2019 passed by the First Appellate Court.

(2.) Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction averring therein that he along with defendants No.1 to 4 (the appellant and respondents No.2 to 4 herein) were the natural legal heirs of late Tara Chand son of Baiya Ram who died on 24/12/2012. It was further averred that the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 4 being the sons and daughters inherited 1/5th share each in the property left by Tara Chand. It was further averred that Tara Chand had a savings bank account with State Bank of Patiala (defendant-respondent No.5) which has a balance of about Rs.12,00,000.00 (rupees twelve lakh). There were other accounts with defendant-respondents No.6 and 7 as well. It was averred that defendant No.1-appellant herein was trying to withdraw the amount from the account of Tara Chand. Aggrieved by the said attempt, the present suit was filed by plaintiff-respondent No.1 claiming 1/5th share in the said bank accounts.

(3.) On notice defendant No.1-appellant along with defendant-respondent No.2 herein appeared and filed their written statement admitting the relationship. It was however denied that defendants No.1 to 4 had inherited the property along with the plaintiff. It was further the contention that the immovable property was still in the name of Tara Chand and that defendant No.1-appellant herein and defendants No.2 and 4 (respondents No.2 and 4 herein) were nominated as nominees in the various accounts. Hence plaintiff-respondent No.1 had no right to seek the declaration. Defendant-respondents No.5 to 7 did not file their written statement. However, they made a statement that they would disburse the amount pursuant to the orders passed by the Court.