RSA No. 3021 of 2008 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … RSA No. 3021 of 2008 Date of decision: September 18 ,2008 Jasjit Singh ..Appellant. Versus Dev Dilbir Singh ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Ms.Vertika H.Singh, Advocate for the appellant. ... Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of Rs.1,70,000/- with proportionate costs along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 6 % per annum on the date of filing of the suit till realization of the decretal amount has been decreed. As per the averments made in the plaint, the parties to this appeal are sons of Gurdev Singh, who died on 28.11.2003 intestate. As per further averments, the said Gurdev Singh had various bank accounts in which amounts were lying deposited. He was also having fixed deposits, Kisan Vikas Patras, UTI Certificates etc. It is the case of the plaintiff-respondent that being the sons of Gurdev Singh, both the parties to the suit were entitled to ½ share of the properties/amounts in dispute, left by said Gurderv Singh who has died intestate. However, the appellant has withdrawn/received and got transferred in his name the disputed amounts but has not paid to the plaintiff his share in the above amounts and the share of the plaintiff, those amounts comes to Rs.1,75,000/-. The defendants had wrongly and illegally refused to pay share of plaintiff. Hence the suit. The suit has been contested by the appellant stating that he was nominated by Gurdev Singh to operate these bank accounts etc. and the said RSA No. 3021 of 2008 2 Gurdev Singh never wanted to give any amount to the plaintiff, which is clear from various writings written by him and as such the appellant being the nominee of Gurdev Singh has withdrawn such amounts which is the subject matter of the suit from the banks legally and the plaintiff respondent has no right over this amount. Vide judgment and decree dated 15.12.2007, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the nominee is a person who is only authorized to receive the amount from banks etc. on behalf of all the legal representatives and only because of the nomination alone, he is not entitled to claim the amount to the exclusion of other legal representatives who are entitled to inherit the property of the deceased. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree, the defendants filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Ropar vide impugned judgment and decree dated 5.6.2008. Still not satisfied, defendants have filed this appeal in this Court. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the respondent is not entitled to any money as the father of the parties, was never willing to give any amount to the respondents. The father of the parties had declared the appellant as his nominee and he had also shown his intention to give the whole amount to the appellant as he has written various writings in his diary and therefore, from this evidence, it has been established on the record that the appellant alone is entitled to the disputed amount. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. I find no merit in the contentions raised by the counsel for the appellant. The sole claim of the appellant is that Gurdev Singh has not died intestate and in fact by nominating the appellant as his nominee and further from the writings in the diary, it is clearly established that Gurdev Singh wanted to give whole of the property to the appellant and these writings coupled with the nomination could be treated as a Will of the deceased Gurdev Singh. The plea set up by the appellant has not been accepted by both the courts below by recording a finding of fact that the appellant has failed to prove these writings as per the law. The documents on RSA No. 3021 of 2008 3 the basis of which the claim has been laid by the appellant has neither been placed on record nor proved in accordance with law. Moreover, a document which is to be treated as a Will has to be executed in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 which lays down a procedure which is necessary for execution of a valid Will. No such evidence has been placed on record to prove these documents as well. The appellant is not entitled to inheritance of the deceased Gurdev Singh to the exclusion of other natural/legal heirs, only because he was constituted as nominee. The nomination is only for the purpose of operating the bank accounts etc. and this nomination do not give any such right to the appellant to claim inheritance alone. For the reasons recorded above,I find no merit in the appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. September 18, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE