KRISHAN LAL Vs. BIMLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A civil revision petition perferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed. This petition was preferred against an interim injunction granted by the trial court. Petitioner were restrained from withdrawing the amount from different banks and post offices. This interim order was made absolute on 6th Sept. 97. An appeal was preffered. this was dismissed on 24th May 99. When the matter came before this court a view was expressed that a person who has been appionted as a nominee is supposed to receive the money from the financial institution as a trustee. It was held that he does not became the owner. He has to distribute the amount among all the heirs for this, reliance was placed on a decision given by the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. sarbati Devi and versus Usha Devi AIR 1984 SC 346. and on a later view expressed in the case of Vishin N. Khanchandani and another versus Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani and anther (2000) 6 SCC 724. the view expressed by the High Court of Calcuta . Madras . Kerala . Gujarat . Orissa, and Karnataka in the case of Dhandhania versus Gangadhar Nathmall, AIR 1956 Cal 275 life insurance corporation of India versus United Bank of India Ltd. AIR 1970 Cal 513 D. Mohanavelu Mudaliar versus Indian Insurance and Banking Corporation Ltd. Salem AIR 1957 Mad 115 Sarojini Amma versus Neelakanla Pillai AIR 1961 Ker 126 (FB). Atmaram Mohanial panchal versus gunavantiecn . Air 1977 Guj 134 Malli Dei versus Kanchan Prava Dei AIR 1973 Ori 83 and Lakshmi Amma versus Saguna Bhagath ILR (1973) Kant 827 was noted. It was accordingly held that the civil revision petition is without merit and the same was dismissed. The petitioner have now preferred a review petition.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the view expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarbati Devi case referred to above, would not be attracted and that the accounts with a bank are strictly governed by the provisions of section 45Z -A of the Banking Regulation Act 1949 what is sought to be urged is that so far as the amounts lying in a bank are concerned, they are to be treated differently and the decisions given in the case relating to life insurance policy have no relevancy. As specific reliance is being placed on the above provision it would be apt to notice the same. This reads as under.

(3.) PETITIONER submit that in terms of sub -section (2) in respect of a deposit, where a nomination has been made (sic) this would on the person so nominated |sic] a right to recive the amount of deposit from the banking company and the nominee on the death of the sole depositor or as the case may be on the death of all depositors becomes entitled to all the rights of the sole depositor or as the case may of all the depositors in relation to such deposit to the exclusion of all the persons, unless the nomination is varied or cancelled in the prescribed manner