1 MNM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3656 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 702 OF 2005 Devidas Maruti Suryawanshi ...Plaintiff Vs. Mrs. Sayabai Maruti Suryawanshi ...Defendants None for the Plaintiff Mr. M.R.Suryavanshi for Defendants 1 to 3 Mr. N.R. Prajapati for Defendant No.4 CORAM : SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 19TH APRIL, 2010 P.C. : 1. The Suit was filed by the son of the deceased father one Maruti Ganu Suryawanshi against his mother, 2 sisters, the Postmaster of a Post Office and the Manager of a Bank where his deceased father had certain investments. The Suit has been dismissed for default on 12th September 2008. 2. The Defendant No.1, the mother of the Plaintiff has taken out this Notice of 2 Motion for certain reliefs in respect of the estate of her deceased husband which form a part of the Suit and which has not been administered in view of the dismissal of the Suit. 3. Rs.4 lakhs were deposited by the deceased in a Post office Account No. 49600918 with the Defendant No.4. Rs.1 lakh was withdrawn during his life time. Rs.3 lakhs remained in the said account. 4. Advocate on behalf of Defendant No.4 has produced a xerox copy of the application for opening the account, and the account kept with the post office. The account was the joint account of the deceased with his wife, Defendant No.1. 5. He relies upon the Post Office (Monthly Income Scheme Account) Rules 1987. Under Chapter XIII Rule 15 of the Rules the status of the joint MIS Account on the death of the one of the depositors is provided. It shows that when one depositor dies, the account will be treated as the single account of the surviving depositor from the date of the death of the depositor when the report is received regarding the death. The surviving depositor can withdraw the excess amount with interest thereon upon the account being converted into a single account. 6. The Defendant No.1 is, therefore, entitled to be paid all the amounts which are lying to the credit of the Post Office Account No.49600918 of her husband consisting of the principal amount as well as the interest. 3 7. During the pendency of the Suit under an interim order dated 16th June 2006 the Post Office was directed not to release the amount on maturity without obtaining the orders of the Court. Since the Suit has stood dismissed since 12th September 2008 Defendant No.1 has applied for directions and orders in respect of that account. It is seen that the Defendant No.1 as the joint account holder would be entitled to be the single account holder and would also be entitled to the amounts standing to the credit of that account. Defendant No.4 shall, therefore, release the amount lying to the credit of the Post Office Account No.49600918 standing in the joint names of the deceased, Maruti Ganu Suryawanshi and Sayabai Maruti Suryawanshi, Defendant No.1 herein. 8. There was a joint account opened by the deceased being Account No.33521 with the Defendant No.5 Bank. It was held jointly by the deceased with Defendant No.1 who was his wife. The account was to be operated by either or survivor. Upon the death of the deceased therefor Defendant No. 5 Bank was enjoined to handover the amount lying to the credit of the account to the surviving account hold being Defendant No.1 herein. 9. Since the Suit has stood dismissed as aforesaid Defendant No.5 Bank shall pay Defendant No.1 herein all the amounts standing to the credit of the Term Deposit Account No.33521 standing in the joint names of Maruti Ganu Suryawanshi and Sayabai Maruti Suryawanshi to Sayabai Maruti Suryawanshi, Defendant No.1 herein. 10.There were 3 Fixed Deposit Receipts (F.D.R) of the deceased husband of 4 Defendant No. 1. Two of them stood in the joint names of the deceased with Defendant No.1. One was in the single name of the deceased. Advocate on behalf of Defendant No.1 states that in one F.D.R of Rs. 50,000/- the Plaintiff was the nominee. In another F.D.R of Rs.50,000/- Defendant No.2 (her daughter) was the nominee and in the 3rd F.D.R of Rs. 50,000/- she herself was the nominee. 11.The Advocate on behalf of Defendant No.1 states that she does not mind if the Plaintiff and Defendant No.2 are allowed to withdraw the amounts of the F.D.Rs in which they were nominees and she be allowed to withdraw the F.D.R in which she is the nominee. The amounts in all the F.D.Rs have been deposited in this Court as per the order dated 16th June 2006. It is directed to be invested in one F.D.R in a Nationalised Bank for a period of 3 years. The 3 year period has expired. The F.D.R may be renewed as directed. It is seen that the Plaintiff, Defendant No.2 and Defendant No.1 are all entitled to an equal share in the proceeds of the F.D.R which has been invested in a Nationalised Bank and renewed thereafter. 12.Consequently, the Plaintiff, Defendant No.2 as well as Defendant No.1 shall be entitled to withdraw and may be returned 1/3rd amount so invested until now by the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court. 13.It is clarified that these withdrawals have been allowed to be made in view of the fact that the investments of the deceased have been either in joint names which were operable by “either or survivor” or in which nominations have been made. Consequently, upon payment as per the 5 terms and conditions of the account and as per the mandate of the deceased for its operation or the nominations, the Post Office Defendant No.4 as well as the Bank Defendant No.5 would stand discharged. 14.It is, however, clarified that all the persons who would be entitled to withdraw the amounts under these investments as aforesaid would hold the same in trust for the estate and would be answerable in a legal claim, if made, in accordance with law and within limitation. 15.The Notice of Motion is disposed off accordingly. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)