Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 54 (MP)

Shah Bano Khanam v. UCO Bank

2021-01-20

VISHAL DHAGAT

body2021
JUDGMENT : Vishal Dhagat, J. 1. Petitioner has filed present writ petition making a prayer to issue writ of mandamus to respondent permitting the petitioner to operate the saving bank account No. 14920100000366 after completion of formalities as per master circular dated 02.07.2012. 2. Short fact of the case, is that, the petitioner namely Smt. Shah Bano Khanam has a joint account with her husband namely Nawab Ahmad Yar Jahangir Khan. Her husband expired on 02.03.2019. Despite the fact that petitioner was having a joint account with her husband, she is not allowed to operate the account by the Bank. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Clause-6.2 of master circular of Reserve Bank of India, which is binding upon the respondent provides as under:- "It may be noted that since payment made to the survivor(s)/nominee, subject to the foregoing conditions, would constitute a full discharge of the bank's liability, insistence on production of legal representation is superfluous and unwarranted and only serves to cause entirely avoidable inconvenience to the survivor(s)/nominee and would, therefore, invite serious supervisory disapproval. In such case, therefore, while making payment to the survivor(s)/nominee of the deceased depositor, the banks are advised to desist from insisting on production of succession certificate, letter of administration or probate, etc., or obtain any bond of indemnity or surety from the survivor(s)/nominee, irrespective of the amount standing to the credit of the deceased account holder." 4. It is further submitted in view of aforesaid master circular, since it is an admitted fact that petitioner was having a joint account with deceased, therefore, petitioner being survivor must be allowed to operate the account as per master circular and bank cannot insist on production of legal representation. It is further submitted by him that there is no restrain order from any Civil Court to the Bank, therefore, respondent ought to have permitted the petitioner to operate the account. 5. Respondent-Bank filed its reply and Bank had relied on master circular in respect of policy of settlement of claims of deceased account holders. It is further submitted by him that there is no restrain order from any Civil Court to the Bank, therefore, respondent ought to have permitted the petitioner to operate the account. 5. Respondent-Bank filed its reply and Bank had relied on master circular in respect of policy of settlement of claims of deceased account holders. Clause-12 of said policy provides as under:- "Settlement of Claim of deceased A/C holder against legal representation When legal representation (i.e. probated will or a succession Certificate or a Letter of Administration to the estate of the deceased) is obtained and produced by the Claimants, the branch shall make the payment in terms of the legal representation, after scrutinizing the following: (i) That the Succession Certificate/Letters of Administration from a Competent court of law or a Certificate from Administration General of the State has been granted pertaining to the estate of the deceased depositor(s) including the balance(s) in account(s) of the deceased etc. (ii) That the name of the depositor and the account number has been correctly stated in the Succession Certificate/Letter of administration/Administrator General's Certificate. (iii) That the Succession Certificate/Letter of Administration/Administrator General's Certificate empowers the claimant(s) to collect the entire debt and interest thereon. (iv) That the amount mentioned in the Succession Certificate/Letter of Administration/Administrator General's Certificate and the balance in the account of the deceased depositor is the same and if there is any difference in the amount, the same is due to application of interest in the account. The branch after verifying the above, may make payment to the claimant(s) on the basis of the Succession Certificate/Letter of Administration/Administrator General's Certificate according to their respective shares mentioned therein as per terms thereof, as per the usual procedure and after calling for all other relevant documents in support/verification of the claim. (v) When the amount/value involved exceeds Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two lacs) assistance from the Bank's legal retainer may be taken in order to ensure that verification of court order is carried out correctly and all necessary legal precautions are scrupulously observed. (b) it may be noted that succession certificate does not apply to the contents of a locker as it's neither a debt nor security. Succession certificate is granted only for the purpose of collection of debts or securities. (b) it may be noted that succession certificate does not apply to the contents of a locker as it's neither a debt nor security. Succession certificate is granted only for the purpose of collection of debts or securities. The branch should explain the position to the claimant(s) as it has been experienced that sometimes claimant(s) have produced a succession certificate with regard to the lockers also. It is only on production of a proper court order directing the bank to allow the claimant(s) to have access to the locker and remove the contents thereof, the claimant(s) may be allowed to do so. In all cases where legal representation as above is brought, there is no need to take T-64 (Revised) etc. On the basis of such certificate, letter of administration/probate/court order, claim should be settled. On removal of the contents of locker, the branch should obtain a letter from the claimant(s) acknowledging that he/she/they/has/have received back the contents of the locker(s) and the locker(s) has/have been surrendered to the bank. All arrears of rent in respect of the locker(s) have to be recovered." 6. It is submitted by counsel for the respondent that son of deceased had objected to bank permitting the petitioner to operate the account. It is submitted by him that son of deceased is having a Will dated 30.11.2018 in his favour. There is no nominee in said account. Son of deceased had made a prayer for freezing the account as he had made a claim on amount in the saving account. It is further submitted by counsel for the respondent/Bank that deceased's son was necessary party in the case and he has not been impleaded as party/respondent in the writ petition. Son of deceased namely Mohd. Arif Ahmad Jahangir Khan had filed a Succession Case before 21st Civil Judge Class-I Jabalpur. There is dispute between mother, son and daughter over the amount in saving bank account. In these circumstances, operation of account may not be allowed to petitioner, but if this Court directs otherwise Bank will comply with the order passed by this Court. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. In the judgment reported in AIR (2005) SC 2813 : 2005 (6) SCC 733 Kasturi Vs. In these circumstances, operation of account may not be allowed to petitioner, but if this Court directs otherwise Bank will comply with the order passed by this Court. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. In the judgment reported in AIR (2005) SC 2813 : 2005 (6) SCC 733 Kasturi Vs. Uyyamperumal two tests have been provided to determine the question whether party is a necessary party to the proceeding or not; (1) there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of that matter involved in the proceedings in question and (2) it should not be possible to pass an effective decree in absence of such party. In view of aforesaid, son of deceased is necessary party. There is non-joinder of necessary party in the writ petition, therefore, writ petition shall be dismissed. 9. Further, a Civil Suit for obtaining succession certificate is pending before Civil Court between the contesting legal representative. Civil Court is seized with the matter and, therefore, it was proper for petitioner to move an application for interim direction to the Bank for permission to operate the account in the same Court where civil suit is pending. If any order is passed in writ petition that may render Civil Suit superfluous 10. In view of above, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.