Delhi High Court
Mrs. Prabha Bennett (Formerly ... vs Rohit Sharma & Anr. on 5 September, 2022
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 5th September, 2022
+ CS(OS) 154/2021 and I.A. 14213/2022(O-VIII R-10 of CPC)
PRABHA BENNETT (FORMERLY SHARMA)
& ORS. ..... Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Rakesh Taneja, Advocate.
versus
ROHIT SHARMA & ANR. ..... Defendants
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The present application has been filed under provisions of Order VIII
Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking pronouncement
of judgment and decree as prayed for in the suit.
2. The plaintiffs, being the legal heirs of late Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma,
have filed the present suit seeking following reliefs:
"a) Pass a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiffs
and against the defendants thus directing the defendants for sharing
complete and up-to-date information about the names and branch
address of the bank(s), the amounts that the defendants withdrew
from the bank account(s) of Late Vijay Kumar Sharma in New
Delhi, India and took control of, with an intention to deprive the
plaintiffs of their legal rights of inheritance in the estate of Late
Vijay Kumar Sharma and remit the money belonging to their shares
and to supply to them a copy each of the bank statement(s) of the
bank account(s) of Late Vijay Kumar Sharma in New Delhi, India;
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AMIT
BANSAL
CS(OS) 154/2021 Page 1 Signing
of 6 Date:06.09.2022 18:30:25
b) Award cost of litigation in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants for having to bring the instant proceedings before this
Hon'ble Court for a the reasons attributable to the conduct of the
defendants;
c) Pass such other order or orders, alternatively or in addition as
may be deemed just and proper in the interests of justice and in the
facts and circumstances of the case."
3. Summons in the suit were issued of 9th March, 2021.
4. Counsel for the defendants appeared before the Joint Registrar on 7th
April, 2022 and submitted that he had filed written statement and affidavit of
admission/denial on 4th April, 2022. However, the written statement and
affidavit of admission/denial were not on record and counsel was asked to
take steps in this regard. In the order of 7th April, 2022, it was noted that
vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of the defendants on 4th April, 2022.
5. None appeared on behalf of defendants on the next date of hearing
i.e., 30th May, 2022. It was noted that the affidavit of admission and denial
of documents has been filed by the defendants. However, right of the
defendants to file written statement was closed on 30 th May, 2022. On 26th
July, 2022, when the matter came up before me, once again, none appeared
on behalf of the defendants and therefore, the defendants were proceeded
against ex parte.
6. Hence, the present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff
seeking a judgment under the provisions of Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC.
7. Counsel for the plaintiff has taken me through the pleadings in the
plaint as well as the various documents filed along with plaint and the
affidavit of admission/denial filed on behalf of the defendants.
8. The case made out in the plaint is that father of the parties, late Sh.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AMIT
BANSAL
CS(OS) 154/2021 Page 2 Signing
of 6 Date:06.09.2022 18:30:25
Vijay Kumar Sharma expired on 10th September, 2008. The death certificate
has been filed along with the plaint. All the parties to the suit are based in
the United Kingdom. In December, 2018, the plaintiff came up to know that
the defendants have taken control and withdrawn money from the bank
accounts of late Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma, maintained in Delhi.
9. Certain text messages were exchanged between the plaintiff no.1 and
the defendants in January, 2019, which are set out hereinafter:
"Rohit Sharma (Defendant No. 1) wrote -"Your share was and
always will be there for you. Whenever you want it let us know and
we will arrange for you to have it."
Ms. Bhavna Sharma (Defendant No. 2) wrote - "Don't worry your
share will be there for whenever you need it. I wouldn't want you
thinking we conned you."
10. Thereafter, upon the failure of the defendants to give the share of the
plaintiffs to them, communication dated 4th November, 2019 was sent on
behalf of the plaintiffs through their UK solicitors to the defendants. In the
reply dated 14th November, 2019 sent by the UK solicitors of the defendants
to the solicitors of the plaintiffs, it was stated the defendant no.1 was added
as a joint account holder in the said bank account by late Sh. Vijay Kumar
Sharma on 4th August, 2007. It is further stated that it was the intention of
the deceased late Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma that the defendant no.1 would be
solely entitled to the amounts in the bank accounts in India. This was
reiterated in the communication dated 6th December, 2219 by the defendants
solicitors.
11. In the reply dated 29th July, 2020 to the legal notice dated 19th July,
2020 of the plaintiff, it has been stated that the claim of the plaintiffs is time
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AMIT
BANSAL
CS(OS) 154/2021 Page 3 Signing
of 6 Date:06.09.2022 18:30:25
barred.
12. Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs submits that the claim
under the present suit is not time barred. He further submits that the money
in the joint account belonged to and was left behind by late Sh. Vijay Kumar
Sharma, who died intestate. Therefore, all his legal heirs are eligible to
inherit the same under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the defendants
alone cannot take control of the monies under the said accounts.
13. I have heard the counsel for the plaintiff.
14. In Indranarayan v. Roop Narayan, (1971) 2 SCC 438, the Supreme
Court has held that if an amount is held by a sole account/deposit holder in
his bank account and subsequently, the name of another person is added as a
joint account holder therein, it will be on the subsequently added holder to
prove that it was the intention of the first holder to make the subsequently
added holder the exclusive owner of the amounts lying in the account after
the death of the first holder. There is no presumption of an intended
advancement and proving the intention of the sole account/deposit holder is
pivotal to claim exclusive ownership of the amounts. The aforesaid
judgment of the Supreme Court has been followed by a Coordinate Bench of
this Court in Prabha Kaul v. Chandra Kaul Muthoo, 2013 SCC OnLine
Del 3027. Relying on the judgments of the Privy Council in Guran Ditta
and Anr. v. T. Ram Ditta, AIR 1928 PC 172 and Pandit Shambhu Nath
Shivpuri v. Pandit Pushkar Nath and Ors., AIR 1945 PC 10, it was held
that in a joint bank account, wherein the amount is payable to either of the
survivor, if the facts and circumstances do not establish the intention of the
first holder to make the survivor, upon his death, the sole owner of the
amounts lying in the account, the joint account holder would be authorised
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AMIT
BANSAL
CS(OS) 154/2021 Page 4 Signing
of 6 Date:06.09.2022 18:30:25
to withdraw the amounts but would be accountable to the heirs of the first
holder.
15. In the present case, the defendants have failed to file written statement
and therefore, have failed to rebut the averments made in the plaint to the
effect that the money in the joint account belonged to late Sh. Vijay Kumar
Sharma and the defendants were merely added as the joint account holders.
Being the joint holders in the bank accounts, they have withdrawn the
amounts from the bank accounts, which they were entitled to do. But, they
cannot claim to have the sole right over the amounts in the said bank
accounts. In view of the fact that late Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma died
intestate, the amount in the bank accounts owned by him would be governed
by the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and would vest with all
the Class I legal heirs of late Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma i.e. the plaintiffs and
the defendants.
16. In the text messages exchanged between the parties on 10 th January,
2019, the defendants have admitted to the share of the plaintiffs in the
aforesaid amounts. However, a contrary stand has been taken in the
communications sent by the defendant's solicitors to the solicitors of the
plaintiffs.
17. As regards the plea of limitation, it is the case of the plaintiffs that
they came to know of the aforesaid bank accounts only in December, 2018
and thereafter, the text messages as well as the communications through
solicitors were sent to the defendants. It has further been stated that the
defendants in their text message of 10th January, 2019, have admitted to the
share of the defendants. Therefore, in light of the admission made by the
defendants, it cannot be said that the suit is barred by limitation.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AMIT
BANSAL
CS(OS) 154/2021 Page 5 Signing
of 6 Date:06.09.2022 18:30:25
18. In view of the above, the plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment and
decree in terms of order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC. Consequently, a decree is
passed in terms of prayer A to the suit. The plaintiffs shall also be entitled to
costs of the present suit including the Court Fees paid by the plaintiffs.
19. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.
AMIT BANSAL, J
SEPTEMBER 5, 2022
sr
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AMIT
BANSAL
CS(OS) 154/2021 Page 6 Signing
of 6 Date:06.09.2022 18:30:25
