Delhi High Court
Sh. Ghanshyam Das vs Sh. Shiv Kumar Vig And Anr. on 19 October, 2010
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 19th October, 2010
+ RSA No. 58/1999
SH. GHANSHYAM DAS ...........Appellant
Through: None.
Versus
SH. SHIV KUMAR VIG AND ANR. ..........Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated
24.04.1999 which had reversed the finding of the Trial Judge dated
21.02.1997. Vide the impugned judgment dated 24.04.1999, it was
held that the defendant no. 1 was entitled to the entire amount of
the FDR which was in the name of Bua Dutta lying with the
defendant no.3, bank.
2. Plaintiff, Smt. Parbati Devi (deceased), filed the suit for
declaration claiming herself to be the owner of the total amount
held under the fixed deposit receipt no. FD/A/619657/2464 dated
17.09.1988 lying with the Allahabad Bank. The prayer was that the
defendants should be restrained from taking this amount. The
principal amount of the FDR was Rs. l lac which had been
deposited on 17.09.1988 for period of two years. It was in the joint
names of Bua Dutta and Shiv Kumar Vig, the defendant. During
the pendency of the suit, plaintiff Smt. Parbati Devi died and she
was substituted through her legal representative, Sh. Ghanshyam
Das.
3. The Trial Judge had framed four issues which inter alia read
as follows:-
"(i) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to
file the present suit? OPD.
(ii) Whether there is no cause of action for the
suit? OPD.
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of
declaration as prayed for? OPP.
(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief
of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP.
(v) Relief."
4. It was held that Smt. Parbati Devi, the widow of Bua Dutta
was his class I hier in terms of the Schedule of the Hindu
Succession Act. The defendant, Shiv Kumar Vij, was the nephew.
Plaintiff though her legal representative was held entitled to the
whole amount of the FDR lying with the Allahabad Bank; suit was
decreed in her favour.
5. Vide the impugned judgment, the finding of the Trial Judge
was set aside. The impugned judgment took into account the fact
that the FDR dated 17.09.1988 was in the joint names of Bua Dutta
and Shiv Kumar Vij payable to `former or survivor' and Shiv Kumar
Vij, that is the defendant; after the death of the Bua Dutta (who
had died inter-State) was the only person entitled to receive this
FDR amount.
The first appellate court also held that Sh. Ghanshyam had
not been properly impleaded as the legal representative of Smt.
Parbati Devi; Ghanshyam Das belonging to a different caste could
not have been the legal representative of Parbati Devi. The
impugned judgment had returned the finding that since the FDR
was in the name of former or survivor, the amount of the FDR
vested in the name of the survivor i.e. Shiv Kumar Vij. He was
accordingly held entitled to the said amount.
6. After the appeal was admitted on 09.12.1999, the following
substantial question of law was formulated which inter alia reads
as follow:-
"Whether in case of deposit by a Hindu in joint
names of himself and respondent no. 1, whether
the same is payable to the legal heirs or to the
survivor?"
7. None has appeared for the parties. Matter is on board. On
the last date i.e. on 29.09.2010, time had been sought by the
counsel for the appellant to submit his arguments. Both the parties
have failed to appear before this court today. The sum of Rs. 1 lac
lying in the disputed FDR dated 17.09.1988 was admittedly in the
joint name of Bua Dutta and Shiv Kumar. It was payable to former
or survivor. Smt. Parbati Devi, the widow of Bua Dutt had staked
her claim on this amount. She had died during the pendency of the
suit. The impugned judgment had returned a categorical factual
finding that Sh. Ghanshyam Das could not have been the legal
representative of Smt. Parbati Devi as both were from different
castes- one belonging to the Brahmins caste and the other to the
Khatri caste.
8. The FDR clearly recited that this amount is payable to former
or survivor. After the death of Bua Dutta, the survivor was
admittedly Shiv Kumar; he was rightfully entitled to the said
amount. The impugned judgment calls for no interference.
Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. Appeal is
dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
OCTOBER 19, 2010
ss
