R.S.A.No. 917 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 917 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.2.2011 Sardar Kaur and another ......Appellants Versus Nirmal Kumar and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs-appellants had filed a suit for recovery. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, was that Surat Singh, husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff No.2 had retired from the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Surat Singh had opened a saving bank account with the State Bank of India. The said account was being operated by Surat Singh alone. Surat Singh used to remain ill and defendant No.1 took advantage of illness of Surat Singh and in collusion with defendant No.3, he got entered his name in the account of Surat Singh. After the death of Surat Singh, defendant No.1 had joined his wife defendant No. 2 in the saving bank account. A succession certificate had been issued R.S.A.No. 917 of 2010 (O&M) 2 in favour of the plaintiffs. However, the plaintiffs, thereafter, came to know that the entire amount had been withdrawn from the bank by defendants No.1 and 2. Defendants No.1 and 2, in their written statement, alleged that the bank account had been jointly opened in the name of Surat Singh and defendant No.1. Surat Singh used to reside with defendants No.1 and 2 during his life time. Defendant No.3 was proceeded ex parte as it had failed to appear despite service. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether the deceased Surat Singh has a saving account in SBI account No.27/10649 ? OPP 2. Whether the deceased Surat Singh operate in saving account No. 27/10649 ? OPP 3. Whether except deceased Surat Singh no one have any concern with the account No. 27/10649 ? OPP 4. Whether the defendant No.1 with the collusion of the defendant No.3 added wrongly their name jointly in account No. 27/10649 ? OPP 5. Whether after the death of Surat Singh, the defendant No.1 with the collusion of the defendant No.3 wrongly added the name of the defendant No.2 in account No. 27/10649 ? OPP R.S.A.No. 917 of 2010 (O&M) 3 6. Whether all amount in account No. 27/10649 and other fixed deposit saving scheme is invested by deceased Surat Singh ? OPP 7. Whether the plaintiffs are class-I heir of deceased Surat Singh ? OPP 8. Whether the defendant Nos1 and 2 illegally with the collusion of defendant No.3 withdraw in many which is deposited in different saving scheme in SBI of deceased Surat Singh ? OPP 9. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the amount of ` 2,55,656/[ which was illegally withdrawn by the defendant No.1 ? OPP 10. Whether the present suit is time barred ? OPD 11. Whether the suit is not properly stamp for court fee ? OPD 12. Whether the present suit is not maintainable in the present form ?OPD 13. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their own act and conduct to file the present suit ?OPD 14. 14. Whether the plaintiffs have concealed the material facts ? OPD 15. Relief.” Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 21.4.2007. Aggrieved by the same, R.S.A.No. 917 of 2010 (O&M) 4 plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 18.8.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Rewari. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. As per the documentary evidence led on record, it was established that the account had been opened jointly by Surat Singh and defendant No.1 and the account could be operated by either or survivor. The defendants also proved on record that Surat Singh was having a Ration Card jointly with defendants No.1 and 2 to establish their plea that Surat Singh was residing with them. Since, the account had been opened by Surat Singh jointly with defendant No.1 and it could be operated by either or survivor, the Courts below had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. It has also been noticed by the trial Court that defendant No.1 was the real nephew of Surat Singh. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 09, 2011 anita