Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 104 (JK)

Krishan Lal v. Bimla Devi

2002-04-12

T.S.DOABIA

body2002
1. A civil revision petition perferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed. This petition was preferred against an interim injunction granted by the trial court. Petitioner were restrained from withdrawing the amount from different banks and post offices. This interim order was made absolute on 6th Sept. 97. An appeal was preffered. this was dismissed on 24th May 99. When the matter came before this court a view was expressed that a person who has been appionted as a nominee is supposed to receive the money from the financial institution as a trustee. It was held that he does not became the owner. He has to distribute the amount among all the heirs for this, reliance was placed on a decision given by the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. sarbati Devi and versus Usha Devi AIR 1984 SC 346. and on a later view expressed in the case of Vishin N. Khanchandani and another versus Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani and anther (2000) 6 SCC 724. the view expressed by the High Court of Calcuta . Madras . Kerala . Gujarat . Orissa, and Karnataka in the case of Dhandhania versus Gangadhar Nathmall, AIR 1956 Cal 275 life insurance corporation of India versus United Bank of India Ltd. AIR 1970 Cal 513 D. Mohanavelu Mudaliar versus Indian Insurance and Banking Corporation Ltd. Salem AIR 1957 Mad 115 Sarojini Amma versus Neelakanla Pillai AIR 1961 Ker 126 (FB). Atmaram Mohanial panchal versus gunavantiecn . Air 1977 Guj 134 Malli Dei versus Kanchan Prava Dei AIR 1973 Ori 83 and Lakshmi Amma versus Saguna Bhagath ILR (1973) Kant 827 was noted. It was accordingly held that the civil revision petition is without merit and the same was dismissed. The petitioner have now preferred a review petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the view expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarbati Devi case referred to above, would not be attracted and that the accounts with a bank are strictly governed by the provisions of section 45Z-A of the Banking Regulation Act 1949 what is sought to be urged is that so far as the amounts lying in a bank are concerned, they are to be treated differently and the decisions given in the case relating to life insurance policy have no relevancy. As specific reliance is being placed on the above provision it would be apt to notice the same. This reads as under. "45Z-A. Nomination for payment of depositors money (1) where a deposit is held by a Banking Company to the credit of one or more persons the depositor or as the case may be, all the depositors together may nominate in the prescribed manner, one person to whom in the event of the death of the sole depositor or the death of all the depositors the anmount of deposit may be returned by the banking company. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any disposition, whether testamentary or otherwise, in respect of such deposit where a nomination made in the prescribed manner purports to confer on any person the right to receive the amount of deposit from the banking company the nominee shall on the death of the sole depositor, or as the case may be on the death of all the depositors become entitled to all the rights of the sole depositor, or as the case may be, of the depositors, in relation to such deposit to the exclusion of all other persons, unless the nomination is varied or cancelled in the prescribed manner. (3) Where the nominee is a minor it shall be lawful for the depositor making the nomination to appoint in the prescribed manner any person to receive the amount of deposit in the event of his death during the minority of the nominee. (4) Payment by a banking company in accordance with the provision of this section shall constitute a full discharge to the banking company of its liability in respect of the deposit. Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall afferd the right or claim which any person may have against the person to whom any payment is made under this section. 3. Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall afferd the right or claim which any person may have against the person to whom any payment is made under this section. 3. Petitioner submit that in terms of sub-section (2) in respect of a deposit, where a nomination has been made (sic) this would on the person so nominated |sic] a right to recive the amount of deposit from the banking company and the nominee on the death of the sole depositor or as the case may be on the death of all depositors becomes entitled to all the rights of the sole depositor or as the case may of all the depositors in relation to such deposit to the exclusion of all the persons, unless the nomination is varied or cancelled in the prescribed manner 4. On the basis of this sub section, it is sought to be urged that the nominee would enjoy all the rights of the sole depositor or as the case may be. of the depositors and this would be to the exclusion of all other person . 5. I am of the opinion that the argument put across by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The terms nomination and nominee stand elaborated in corpus juris secundum vol. 66 page 600 . The word nomination has been defined as an appointment: a pouci to appoint a clerk to a patron of a benefice. The word nominee has been defined as under: "The word nominee ordinarily indicates one designated to act for another as his representative in a rather limited sense, Ithas no connotation, however other than that of acting for another in representation of another or as the grantee of another. In its commonly accepted meaning the term cannotes the delegation of authority to the nominating in a representative or nominees capacity only, and does not connote the transfer or assignment to the nominee of any property in, or ownership of, the rights of the person nominatini; him 6. Therefore, the term nominee has to be understood in a sense in which it normallyunderstood in legal parlance. A nominee has necessarily to be distinguished from an assignee The word nominee has also been defined in blacks law dictionary at page 1050 as under. " One who has been nominated or proposed for an office. Therefore, the term nominee has to be understood in a sense in which it normallyunderstood in legal parlance. A nominee has necessarily to be distinguished from an assignee The word nominee has also been defined in blacks law dictionary at page 1050 as under. " One who has been nominated or proposed for an office. One designated to act for another in his or her place. One designated to act for another as his representative in a rather limited sense, e. g. stock held by brokerage firm in street name to facilitate transactions even through customer is actual owner of securities. It is used sometimes to signify an agent or trustee. It has no connotation, however, other than that of acting for another, in representation of another or as the grantee of another." If the definitions noticed above are taken note of. then it becomes apparent that a nominee has no connotation other than that of acting for another this meaning as also the meaning given in corpus juris secundum noticed above negative the contention put across by the petitioner. If the argument put across by the petitioners is to be accepted, than the distinction between a nominee and an assignee would cease to exist. In view of the above I do not find any justification to review the order passed in civil revision 153 / 2000 dt. 21st Dec 2000. This petition as such is found to be without merit and is dismissed.