Civil Revision No. 3466 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3466 of 2009 Date of decision : 21.1.2010 Anoop Singh and another ....Petitioners Versus Mehtab Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Vikram Singhi, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. O.P.Goyal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No.1 Mr. Mrignaik Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.2. S. D. ANAND, J. The present litigation is representative of a family feud. The petitioners are sons of Bharat Singh; while respondents no.3 to 5 are their siblings and respondent Mst. Khazani is their mother, Certain cash deposits (FDR Nos.SD-A/63 572217 for Rs.1,39,000/-) were made by deceased Bharat Singh and respondent Mehtab Singh. Besides these deposits, the duo aforementioned had also deposited a sum of Rs.1,16,300/- under reinvestment plan on 15.3.2002 and also short term deposit of Rs.46,700/-. The disbursement of the maturity value was in favour of both of them or survivor. Those were the instructions to the S.B.I. at Bhjatgaon Branch. Insofar as the immovable property of Bharat Singh is concerned, he had executed a testamentary disposition. It is in evidence that line pertaining to the cash deposit was scored off by the testator Bharat Singh and he had put his thumb impression on the cutting. There is no controversy about that fact. Smunder Singh and Anoop Singh sons of testator Bharat Singh filed a plea under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) claiming entitlement to the proportionate disbursement of the deposits aforementioned. The plea raised thereby was that the surviving claimant shall hold those deposit for Civil Revision No. 3466 of 2009 -2- **** the benefit of all the legal representatives. The plea was negatived by the learned Trial Court. The finding was upheld by the learned Ist Appellate Court. The petitioners are in revision against it. It is vehemently urged by the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, that the view obtained by both the Courts cannot be sustained in view of the law laid down by a Single Bench of this Court in Daljit Kaur Vs. Hari Singh and others 2009(2) Civil Court Cases, 660. In my considered view, the ruling aforementioned has no applicability to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Though there can be no dispute with the proposition of law laid down by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the ruling is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In that case, the deposit had been made by only the deceased and the person who raised exclusive claim thereto was only a nominee. As against it, in the present case, it is apparent from the pleadings and it is also beyond the pale of controversy presently that the deposits had been made in the joint names. In that view of things, Mehtab Singh respondent raised a claim for disbursement of the total amount in his favour not only on the basis of his being a nominee of Bharat Singh deceased but also a claim in his own right as a survivor. For that very reason, the law laid down by the Kerala High Court in Muhammedan Vs. Parukutty Amma 1995(1) L.J.R. 684 would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Things would have been entirely different if the deposit had been made by Bharat Singh only and Mehtab Singh was only the nominee thereunder. The proven/conceded fact that both of them were the depositors would make all the difference. The nomination of Mehtab Singh and also the fact of his being the survivor would not enable the petitioners to wish away the fact that he occupied the status of a co-depositor too along with the other depositor Bharat Singh. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. January 21, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE