I1l FAO 2O1 /aO(J4: IN TIIE IIIGII COI}RT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI EAO z0r /2OO4 & CM.APPL.8066/2004 Dafe of Decision: Se.nte.mber 20. 2OO4 SH.RA}I CHANDER TAL\JI{AR & AhiR .... Appellant Thlouglr. Mr.T.K. Gaqu with l\lk.Swetank Shantanu, Advo cates. versu.s DE\rE}TDER KI.JMARTALTfrAR & OR,S. ..., Fsspondents Through Asit Tewart, Advocate. CORAM: {'IION'BLE MR. .IIISTICE R.S. SODHI 1 . Whe.ther Reporte.rs of local pape.rs may be allowed to see the judgmenL? YES 2-To be rcJerred to the Reporter or not? YF)S 3. Whel.her Lhe judgmenl should bc reporled in Lhe cligesl? YAS JUDGMENT B.S.SOIIEI J; (ORAL) 4 1. This appeal is directed against the jrrdgment dated 24.4.2o04 of the Additional Distrie.t Judge, De.lhi in PC No.212l2001 whereby the learned Jrrdge has issued. Le.tte.rs of Adnrinistration in respect of l/gd share belonging to tJ:e re.spondents lyrng deposited in Union Bank of India, Kajlash Colony, Nerv De.lhi and arlicles tyrng in locker No.854 on + o/o # tI $ A !Y Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified q l2l deposit on necessary corrt fee. 9 EAO 2O1 lZOcA 2' Brief facts of the case as noted by the Additionar District Jrrdge are as rrnde.n "....a petition rmder Seetion 278 of the h:dian Succession Act, 1925 ffor short the Act of 1925) for grant of letters of adrrinistration in respect of estate of late Smt.Vldyawati Taiwar and late Shri Ganda Ram- Talvrar was filed. Pelitione.r and respondent no.2 are the ,sons and respondent no.3 is the. daughter of said late Srrrt. Vidyawati Talwar and late Shir Gand Ram Talwar. The case of the petitioner is that Shri Ganda Rasr Talwar had died on 6.2.1995 ryhe.reas Smt.Vidyawati Talwar had breathed her last movable properties/assets. The Petitioner, being one out of the three 1egal heirs was entitled to 1/3'd share i:e t]:e assets Ieft by his deceased parents. According to the peUtioner, respondent no.Z had been dealing with the accormts of the pare.nts of the partie.s and all relevant documents like bank pass book and fixed deposit receipts were available with him. The petitioner rurde.rLook to adnrinister the properties and credits of the deceased parents and to exhibit ari inventory udthin six months of grant of the administration. Respondents No.2 and 3 contested the petition by way of filing joint objections. It was stated that the petitioner had been practieally disowned by deceased parerrts becamse of the reason that he was not lookjng after theur. The behaviour of th.e petitioner was not upto the mark. History of the petitioner about his education and working 4' v I3l EAO 201 /zc,c/- udth soure companies \s. as also gpven, but the sa:rre is not very relevarrt. The ground on which the petition is opposed, is that in respect of amorurt lying in the bank accorrnt, respondent no.2 had been appointed nominee in the prescribed form as requted under Sectin 45-ZA of Banking Regrrlation Act, and Rule 2(7) of the Banking Companies fNonrination)Ru1es, 1985. The said nonrination had been acted ltpon by the banker and z/gd arrrount lylng in the account had already been paid to respondent no.2 and the remaining 1/3,'d has not been paid in vieur of tJle injunction order passed by the learned Civjl Judge, Delhi in Suit No.217lgg. It was, however, not disprrted by Respondents No.2 and 3 that the deceased parents of the parties had died intestate a.s far as ttre mot-able prope.rties,/ assets are conce.rned. On the basis of the parties, follorring issues were frasred by me vide order dated 29.5.20U2: I) Whe*rer ttre petition is not uraintainable because of the alleged nomination in favour of respondent no.2 and Rtrle 2(1) of the BanJring Companies Nomination Rtrle 2t1) of the Banking Companies Nonrination Rrrle.s 1985 as alleged in para 3 of the prelimina4r objections? II) TVhether the petifioner is entifled to ietter of adrrrinistration as clainred by him u/s ZTA of the Indian Succession Act, lgZS? IIIJRe.hef " 14l FAO 2O1l2OJ t\ a-"{ 3. It is contended by colrnsel for the appellants that deposits in Barks are cove.red rrnder Section 45 ZA of the Banking Regulation Act 7949, [hereurafter refered to as the Act), which in trrrn makes nolninee of the depositor sole beneff.ciary and entitled to all riglrts of the sole depositor' 4. Corrnse.l for the respondent on the other hand contencls that a nominee is a trtstee of tJle amortnts depositecl by the depositor ancl tJre legal hei::rs are entitlecl to receive their share under ttre relevant succession laws. 5, Heard counse.l for the parties and have gone througfir the judgment under challenge. It appeaffi to me that the trial court has returned its findin$s based on the jrrdgment of the Supreme Court in & Anr. Vs. Vidva lechmanda.s Khanchandani & Anr. [2OOO) 6 SCC 724, where the corrt has held as follorvs: 'The Act only nnakes the provislons regarding avoiding delay and e:qpense in making t}le payment of the amount of t}:e National Savings Certifteates, to the noninee of the holder, which has been considered to 'be beneff.cial bottt for the holder as also for the post office. Any amount paid to the nominee after valid dednctions becosres the estate of ttre ( I5l t EAO 2O1/zO04-. ( deceased. Srrch an estate devolves rrpon all persons who are entitled to succession under law, custom or testarnent of the deceased holde.r. In oftrer words, the law laid dourn by this Court in Sarbati Devi case holds the field ald is equally applicable to the nomlnee beconring entifled to the paJzrnent of the a:rrount on account of National Sar,ings Certlficates received. by him rrnder Sectlon 6 read urith Section 7 af the Act .who in furn is liabte to retrrrn the annount to those in whose favour the law creates a beneficial interest, subject to the provisions of strb-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act.', 6. Althoug[: the wording section 4s a of ttre Act is not identical to the provisions under consicleration by the supre.nae court yet proviso to *Sub-section 4 of the Act suggests that the amount held by the nominee is subject to the riglrts of the other hei:s of tJ:e deceaseel uncler ltre sirccession laws. In that view of the m.atter, I flnd no gpormcl to inte.rfere. FAo zar/zoo4 & eM,Appl,.soFi6/zoo4 are dismissed. September 2O, ZOO4 bp *tt*AL crn^ \t l?+t4 .=--.-'.'# f v<t"firT|omod tR.S. SODHI, Jl