THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 2689 of 2010 Dated: 24-11-2010 Between: Kesireddy Anasuya …Petitioner and The Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Sansad Marg, New Delhi and others …Respondents Oral Order: This writ petition has been instituted by Smt. Kesireddy Anasuya seeking a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to honour and discharge the Fixed Deposits and Kisan Vikas Patras held in the name of the writ petitioner individually and also jointly with her husband, which have since matured. The case of the petitioner is that she is the widow of the deceased Kesireddy Bheem Reddy who died on 15-6-2008. The Central Government, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 12 of the Government Savings Certificates Act, 1959, Act 46 of 1959 promulgated the Kisan Vikas Patra Rules, 1988 and brought them into force with effect from 1-4-1988. In accordance with Act 46 of 1959 and the Rules made thereunder, the petitioner has purchased Kisan Vikas Patras and also Monthly Income Scheme Certificates. Seven certificates have been obtained in the joint names of the writ petitioner herein and Sri Kesireddy Bheem Reddy, whereas one such deposit is lying exclusively in the name of the writ petitioner. These respective certificates/deposits have matured, but however their proceeds have not been paid by the respondents to the writ petitioner as there is a parallel claim from a third party. Hence this writ petition has been instituted. The learned counsel Sri S.S.Varma who took notice on behalf of the respondents has filed a detailed counter-affidavit sworn to by the Superintendent of Post Office, Medak Division confirming the fact that six Term Deposit Receipts and Ten Kisan Vikas Patras bearing face value of Rs.10,000/- each were standing in the joint names of Sri Kesireddy Bheem Reddy and the writ petitioner herein and one Term Deposit Receipt bearing No. 3153 was standing in the individual name of the writ petitioner herein and that the proceeds are liable to be paid to the survivor. However, the Superintendent of Post Office would submit that one Smt Kesireddy Sumathi filed a Civil Suit O.S.No. 98 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Siddipet to which suit respondents 2 and 3 herein are also impleaded as defendants. The plaintiff in the said suit O.S.No. 98 of 2008 prayed for a declaration that she is entitled for receiving a sum of Rs.3,86,500/- and consequently prayed for a direction to the defendants in the suit to make the said payment together with interest accrued thereon and hence the respondents have considered it appropriate not to pay the amount exclusively to the writ petitioner herein pending adjudication of the dispute between the parties in the said O.S.No. 98 of 2008 to which suit incidentally the writ petitioner is also impleaded as a defendant. Be that as it may, it is appropriate to notice that Section 7 of Act 46 of 1959 which dealt with the obligation arising out of the death of a holder of Savings Certificate. Section 7 reads as under: 7. (1) If the holder of a savings certificate dies and there is in force at the time of his death a nomination in favour of any person, payment of the sum due thereon shall be made to the nominee. (2) Where the nominee is a minor, payment of the sum due thereon shall be made- (a) in any case where a person has been appointed to receive it under sub-section (3) of section 6, to that person, and (b) where there is no such person, to any guardian of the property of the minor appointed by a competent court, or where no such guardian has been so appointed, to either parent of the minor or where neither parent is alive, to any other guardian of the minor. (3) Where the sum due on a savings certificate is payable to two or more nominees, and either or any of them dies, the sum shall be paid to the surviving nominee or nominees. (4) If a person dies and is at the time of his death the holder of a savings certificate and there is no nomination in force at the time of his death probate of his will or letters of administration of his estate or a succession certificate granted under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, is not within three months of the death of the holder produced to the prescribed authority, then, if the sum due on the savings certificate does not exceed such limit as may be prescribed, the prescribed authority may pay the same to any person appearing to it to be entitled to receive the sum or to administer the estate of the deceased. (5) Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to require any person to receive payment of the sum due on a savings certificate before it has reached maturity or otherwise than in accordance with the terms of the savings certificate.” Sub-section (1) of Section 7 makes it clear that at the time of the death of the holder of a savings certificate, if the nominee survives the payment of the sum due on the savings certificate shall be made to the said nominee. Section 6 enables the holder of a savings certificate to appoint a nominee. Similarly Rule 29 of the Post Office Term Deposit Rules, 1989 deals with the procedure for encashment of certificates held in joint names. Sub-rule (3) thereof deals with the question of payment to be made to a survivor and hence it is appropriate to quote the same. “(3) When one of the joint holders dies, the payment on a joint type certificate, both joint ‘A’ and joint ‘B’ will be made to the survivor, he being the sole owner of the certificate. If the survivor desires to avail of facility of nomination, he will have to get the certificate transferred in his name. A single type certificate will be issued in the name of the survivor. The cancelled certificate will be sent to the Postal Accounts Office along with the Issue Journal. (For such transfer of certificates governed by POSC Rules, NSCs (I Issue) Rule, 1956. NSCs (IV Issue) 19760-NSCs (V Issue) Rules. 1973 and ND Bonds Rules, 1977, no fee is due.)” The above sub-rule makes the position clear that when one of the joint holders dies, the payment of a joint type certificate will be made to the survivor. In the instant case, the petitioner has produced a death certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Peerlapally village of Jagdevpur Mandal, Medak District declaring that Sri Kesireddy Bheem Reddy of Peerlapally village of Jagdevpur Mandal, Medak District has died on 15-6-2008. It is therefore clear that the proceeds of the Term Deposit Certificates and Kisan Vikas Patras, a reference of which was made at Sl.Nos. 1 to 8 of the counter-affidavit are liable to be paid to the petitioner herein. In so far as the Term Deposit bearing TD No. 3154 is concerned, in the absence of any nomination in favour of the writ petitioner herein in terms of Section 6 of Act 46 of 1959 by the certificate holder Sri Kesireddy Bheem Reddy, the proceeds cannot be paid to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondents Sri Varma submits that in so far as this Term Deposit is concerned, the deposit holder has nominated Sri Kesireddy Lavanya and hence the writ petitioner cannot seek payment of the proceeds of the Term Deposit bearing TD No. 3154 to her. It is needless to observe that the payment which is liable to be paid to the petitioner herein is in accordance with the provisions contained in Sections 6 and 7 of Act 46 of 1959 read with Rule 29 (3) of the Post Office Term Deposit Rules, 1989 and it is not by virtue of any adjudication made by this Court that the writ petitioner becomes the sole owner of the said proceeds. Therefore, the payment made to the petitioner herein by the respondents will completely discharge them from any further obligation to make any further payment to the plaintiff in O.S.No. 98 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet. A copy of the order of payment may be communicated to the plaintiff in the said suit by the respondents. The writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to calculate and settle the maturity proceeds including the interest accrued on the Term Deposits and Kisan Vikas Patras till the date of their maturity or premature encashment whichever date is earlier,, a reference of which has been made at Sl.Nos. 1 to 8 of the counter- affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Post Office, Medak Division, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. The writ petition therefore, stands allowed. No costs. __________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J 24th November, 2010 GRR