Dismissed

Mahendran v. The Branch Manager

Madras HC9 Dec 2024WP(MD)/3408/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition for directing bank to disburse deceased father's funds among eight legal heirs. Bench noted one heir's non-cooperation. Directs willing heirs to file claim, with bank distributing shares except the absent heir's portion.

What did the court decide?

Directs willing legal heirs to apply for claim with formalities; bank to distribute 1/8 shares while retaining share of absent heir Muthukrishnan.

Mahendran Vs The Branch Manager — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.3408 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 09.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.3408 of 2024

Mahendran

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Paramakudi (Branch Code 00756), 432/4-104, Melavaniyar Street, P.P.No.1, Paramakudi - 623 707.

¶11

2.Muthukrishnan

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

(R2 is impleaded vide Court order dated 22.11.2024 in WMP(MD)No. 4081/2024 in W.P.(MD)No.3408/2024)

¶14

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to disburse the amount in the saving bank account of the petitioners father vide A/C No.10747860189 in favour of all the legal heirs within a time frame fixed by this Honourable Court without insisting consent letter by considering the petitioner representation dated 22.11.2023.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Balaji For R-1 : Mr.S.Anwar Sameem For R-2 : No appearance

¶16

1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.P.(MD).No.3408 of 2024

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This writ petition is filed to direct the 1^st respondent to disburse the amount in the saving bank account of the petitioner's father vide A/C No. 10747860189 in favour of all the legal heirs within a time frame fixed by this Honourable Court without insisting consent letter by considering the petitioner representation dated 22.11.2023.

¶20

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

¶21

3.The petitioner's father passed away on 12.05.2000. He maintained an account with the 1^st respondent bank vide account No.10747860189. It is known that the deceased person had an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) approximately in the said account. Hence, the petitioner made a representation on 22.11.2023 to disburse the amount equally to all the surviving legal heirs. The said Ponnusamy is survived by eight legal heirs and the details is as follows:

¶22

S.No.	Name	Relation of the deceased
1.	Nageswari	Daughter

¶23

2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

W.P.(MD).No.3408 of 2024

¶25

2.
3.

¶26

2.	Muthukrishnan	Son
3.	Ponnumuthu	Daughter
4.	Jeyasithan	Son
5.	Kasiviswanathan	Son
6.	Mahendran	Son
7.	Malini	Daughter
8.	Veerapandiyan	Son

¶27

4.When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent bank, Mr.S.Anwar Sameem, on instructions, submitted that since the said account was not operated for a long period of time, the same has become a tariff account. Hence, all the legal heirs should produce the following: (i)Copy of death certificate, (ii) Legal heir certificate, (iii) KYC documents of claimants, (iv) affidavits sworn by two independent witnesses, (v) letter of disclaimer, (vi) letter of indemnity signed by claimants, (vii) surety for indemnity (one surety good for the amount or two sureties jointly good for the amount) and (viii) statement of Assets & Liability / Opinion report on surety, along with an application form for settlement of claim of the deceased constituents.

¶28

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that among the eight legal heirs, Muthukrishnan is the eldest son and he is not turning up

¶29

3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

W.P.(MD).No.3408 of 2024

¶31

for making a joint application along with all other surviving legal heirs. Hence, there is a difficulty for them to follow the instructions given by the 1^st respondent bank.

¶32

6.Per contra, the learned counsel for the bank submitted that they cannot disburse the amount in an installment basis to the legal heirs one after the other which should be a one time measure resulting in the closure of the account permanently.

¶33

7.Considering the peculiar nature of the case and non co-operation of one of the legal heirs of the deceased, Ponnusamy, the petitioner filed an impleading petition, and the said Muthukrishnan was impleaded as the 2^nd respondent by an order made in W.M.P.(MD)No.4081 of 2024 dated 22.11.2024 and notice was duly issued by this Court and the same was received. However, he has not turned up and his name is also printed in the cause list.

¶34

8.Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the 2^nd respondent wantonly having received the notice, did not turn up before this Court. For

¶35

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

W.P.(MD).No.3408 of 2024

¶37

the adamant nature of the 2^nd respondent, the other legal heirs of the deceased could not be made to suffer.

¶38

9.In view of the same, the other legal heirs of the deceased Ponnusamy are hereby directed to make an application following all the formalities along with an application form for settlement of claim of deceased constituents. As far as the deceased daughter Nageswari is concerned, her surviving legal heirs who are four in number shall join the other legal heirs in making the application. On receipt of the same, the bank can equally distribute 1/8 share to each of the legal heirs retaining the share of Muthukrishnan.

¶39

10.Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of . There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

09.12.2024

¶41

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

¶42

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

W.P.(MD).No.3408 of 2024

¶44

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

¶45

Sml

¶46

W.P.(MD).No.3408 of 2024

¶47

09.12.2024

¶48

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Mahendran v. The Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendran 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Mathewo, Vs The Director

Vijayalakshmi Vs The District Manager

Mariappan. G Vs The District Collector

Maridurai Pandian.K Vs the District Collector/Appellate Tribunal

Shenbagam. S Vs The District Collector

Saraswathy.G Vs The Principal Secretary to Government