Allowed

Jebapackiam v. the Branch Manager

Madras HC29 Nov 2024WP(MD)/329/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed the respondent bank to release a matured deposit to the petitioner as nominee, instructing him to hold the amount in trust and equitably share it with other legal heirs of the deceased account holder.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent bank to release matured deposit to petitioner as trustee to share equitably with other legal heirs.

Jebapackiam Vs the Branch Manager — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.329 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 29.11.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.329 of 2022

Jebapackiam

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Mudalur, Thoothukudi District.

¶11

Tamilselvi

¶12

3.Sudhakar

¶13

4.Selvi

¶14

5.Seeli ... Respondents

¶15

(Respondents 3 to 5 are suo-motu impleaded vide Court order dated 29.11.2024 made in W.P.(MD)No.329 of 2022)

¶16

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of mandamus directing the respondent bank to release the matured deposit to the petitioner as nominee by closing the re deposit dated 18.8.2021 within stipulated time.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.T.A.Ebenesar

¶18

1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

W.P.(MD).No.329 of 2022

¶20

For R-1 : Mr.P.Pethu Rajesh For R-2 : No appearance

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This writ petition is filed to the respondent bank to release the matured deposit to the petitioner as nominee by closing the re deposit dated 18.8.2021.

¶23

2.Heard the learned counsels on either sides and carefully perused the materials available on record.

¶24

3.The petitioner is one of the daughters of one Thiru.Deva Asirvatham Nadar who had opened a deposit with the 1^st respondent bank on 23.10.2018 for a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs only). The validity of said deposit is 13 months, and the petitioner was appointed as nominee by the said Deva Asirvatham Nadar. The said deposit was renewed on 23.10.2019 for a further period of 13 months from the date of deposit. Later the said Thiru.Deva Asirvatham Nadar had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- on 25.11.2019, Rs.50,172/- on 24.02.2020, Rs.25,154/- on 23.04.2020 and Rs.25,118/- on 26.05.2020. In the meanwhile, he passed away on 14.08.2020, and he was survived by his wife, one son, and three

¶25

2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.P.(MD).No.329 of 2022

¶27

daughters. One of his sons, namely, Koil Raj, predeceased him. After the demise of Thiru.Deva Asirvatham, an amount to the tune of Rs.12,99,556/was reinvested on 23.12.2020 with the 1^st respondent bank for another term of 13 months which matured on 23.01.2022. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner submitted an application for settlement of the claim of the deceased Thiru.Deva Asirvatham to the 1^st respondent bank on 18.08.2020. Since the same was not considered, this writ petition came to be filed.

¶28

4.The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent bank, Mr.P.Pethu Rajesh, on the basis of the counter affidavit filed by the 1^st respondent, submitted that the petitioner is entitled to receive the said amount in the capacity of nominee as appointed by the deceased Thiru.Deva Asirvatham. However, other than the petitioner, there are four other legal heirs, and they are entitled to an equitable share in the said deposit.

¶29

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner has also fairly conceded with the claim of the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent bank that there are some other legal heirs other than the petitioner, and he also filed a memo to that effect.

¶30

3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.P.(MD).No.329 of 2022

¶32

6.In view of the same, this Court hereby direct the respondent bank to release the matured deposit to the petitioner in the capacity of nominee by closing the re-deposit dated 23.12.2020 which got matured on 23.01.2022.

¶33

7.The legal heirs of the deceased Thiru.Deva Asirvatham Nadar, other than the petitioner, namely, Sudhakar, Selvi and Seeli, all are residing at Mudalur, Sathankulam Taluk, Tuticorin District-628 702, are suo-motu impleaded as the respondents 3 to 5. Registry is directed to carry out the necessary amendments in the cause title.

¶34

8.The petitioner is directed to receive the said amount as a trustee who holds the same in trust on behalf of herself and the other legal heirs and is further directed to equitably share the amount among herself and the other surviving legal heirs.

¶35

9.With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶36

29.11.2024

¶37

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes Sml

¶38

4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

W.P.(MD).No.329 of 2022

¶40

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

¶41

Sml

¶42

W.P.(MD).No.329 of 2022

¶43

29.11.2024

¶44

5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Jebapackiam v. the Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jebapackiam v. the Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Periyya.a Vs The Executive Engineer

Shanmuga Jegan Densingh R Vs the District Collector

Subramanian S Vs The Chief Engineer

Amutha.L Vs The Dean

Manjammal @ Manjammal Devi Vs The Branch Manager

Dindigul Nadar Uravinmurai S.M.B. Manickam Nadar Vs The Director of Town and Country Planning