Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 184 (KAR)

Nandakumar v. Vinod S/o Late Ramachandra Gunda

2022-02-09

B.M.SHYAM PRASAD

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in O.S. No.104/2019 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol [for short, 'the civil Court'], has filed this petition impugning the civil Court's order dtd. 18/12/2021. The civil Court by this impugned order has rejected the petitioner's application [I.A. No.4] under Order XI Rule 14 read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short 'CPC']. 2. The petitioner has filed this application for directions to the fourth to ninth respondents to produce the account statement and the details of the fixed deposits held by the petitioner's mother, Smt. Sushilabai. The civil Court has rejected this application on the ground that the respondents - Banks are formal parties to the suit and the burden lies upon the petitioner to establish his case by cogent and convincing evidence notwithstanding the fact that this application is not resisted by any of the family members or by the respondents-Banks. The civil Court has also observed that the petitioner could obtain the details by filing necessary applications and therefore he has not made out a case for favourable consideration of the petitioner's application. 3. Sri. Shivaraj C. Balloli, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has filed this suit in O.S. No.104/2019 for partition of the properties left behind by his parents. The first to third respondents are his siblings. The suit schedule properties include not just the immovable properties but also certain deposits held by the mother during her lifetime. Some of the defendants have received the monies held in deposits by the mother because of the nomination clause and the details are not available with the petitioner. These details must be brought on record for complete adjudication. However, the learned counsel is unable to controvert that the petitioner has not submitted the application with the respondents - Banks and the present application is filed without even an application with the concerned respondents for necessary details. 4. This Court must observe that one of the questions that will have to be decided in the suit in view of the pleadings is whether the petitioner would be entitled for any share in the fixed deposits held by the mother as on the date of her demise. 4. This Court must observe that one of the questions that will have to be decided in the suit in view of the pleadings is whether the petitioner would be entitled for any share in the fixed deposits held by the mother as on the date of her demise. If the petitioner makes out a case in this regard, and if any amount is received by any of the nominee/s, such receipt would always be subject to the adjudication of the petitioner's right to a share in view of the settled law that payment to a nominee only discharges the obligations to pay the amounts payable but will not eclipse the rights of the legal heirs, if any. In the circumstances of the case where the dispute is between the petitioner and his siblings because of the petitioner's claims in the deposits held by the mother, the respondents-Banks may not reject the application on the ground that the petitioner is seeking personal details and therefore such information can be secured without controversy. 5. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition should be disposed of with the liberty to file a similar application, notwithstanding the impugned order, if the petitioner's application for details as aforesaid is rejected by the respondents-Banks, or not considered, despite the circumstance of the case. The petition, therefore, stands disposed of with such liberty.