Madras High Court
Anitha vs Pameela Moses on 11 July, 2023
WA No.2190 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
WA No.2190 of 2018
Anitha : Appellant
versus
1.Pameela Moses
2.Manoj Moses
3.State Bank of India,
rep. By its Branch Manager,
Saibaba Colony,
Coimbatore 641 011
4.S.W.Vijayakumar (deceased) : Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent
against the order dated 29.06.2018 in WP No.19632 of 2013.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Bennington
For Respondents : Mr.W.R.Subhashini,
for the first respondent
Not ready in notice
reg. Respondents 2 and 3
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.2190 of 2018
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.)
The intra court appeal has been preferred by the appellant
challenging the order dated 29.06.2018 in W.P.No.19632 of 2013.
Brief facts of the case:
2. The first respondent/first petitioner is that she along with her
aunt Sarojini Williams, was holding four accounts in the third
respondent bank on "either or survivor" basis. While so, the first
respondent/first petitioner's aunt passed away on 04.08.2007 leaving
behind her only son, the fourth respondent/second respondent
namely S.W.Viayakumar (deceased), as her legal heir. After the
demise of first respondent/first petitioner's aunt, the entire amount
standing to the credit of the accounts devolved upon her as survivor.
But the third respondent/first respondent declined to disburse the
amount to the first respondent/first petitioner, on the ground that the
fourth respondent/second respondent had instituted a suit in
O.S.No.336 of 2008 before the Additional District Munsif Court,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.2190 of 2018
Coimbatore against the first respondent/first petitioner and the third
respondent/first respondent bank and the same is pending.
Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent/petitioner filed a writ
petition in W.P.No.19632 of 2013, before this Court. After filing of the
writ petition, the said suit was withdrawn by the fourth respondent.
Pursuant to the withdrawal of the said O.S., the third respondent
Bank had agreed to disburse the amount to the first
respondent/petitioner as per the guidelines issued by the Reserve
Bank of India, dated 23.08.2012. Subsequently, on 27.03.2014, the
fourth respondent had passed away. Therefore, the Writ Court, by
order dated 29.06.2018, directed the third-respondent bank to settle
the amount to the first respondent/first petitioner. Challenging the
said order passed by the Writ Court, the appellant/wife of the
deceased fourth respondent has filed the intra court appeal.
3. According to the appellant, the said order passed by the Writ
Court, is unsustainable on the ground that the fourth respondent/son
of the aunt is the sole legal heir of her mother, Sarojini Williams.
Therefore, he is entitled for 50 % of the despited amount. Since
appellant is the only legal heir of the fourth respondent, she is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.2190 of 2018
entitled for the aforesaid amount. Even during his lifetime, the
deceased Viayakumar/husband of the appellant, has withdrawn the
suit. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that
impugned order passed by the writ court is liable to be set aside and
writ appeal to be allowed.
4. According to the learned counsel for the first respondent, the
Writ Court has considered the statement of both the first respondent
as well as the respondent bank and passed orders. Therefore, there is
no infirmity in the order passed by the writ court .
5. We have carefully considered the submissions made on
behalf of the appellant, as well as the first respondent and perused
the order passed by the Writ Court. Though the appellant is the legal
heir of deceased S.W.VijayaKumar (fourth respondent), the said
Viayakumar during his lifetime has filed O.S.No.336 of 2008 on the
file of Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore and the same was
withdrawn by himself during his life time and accordingly the said suit
was dismissed as withdrawn.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.2190 of 2018
6. Further, it is found that the first respondent herein and her
aunt Sarojini Williams were holding the bank accounts on 'either or
survivor' basis. Subsequently, the said Sarojini Williams passed away
on 04.08.2007. In such circumstances, as per the Guidelines issued
by the Reserve Bank of India, which specifically states that "if the
operating instruction is 'either or survivor', and one of the depositors
expires before the maturity, no pre-payment of the Fixed/Term
Deposit may be allowed without the concurrence of the legal heirs of
the deceased joint account-holder. This, however would not stand in
the way of making payment to the survivor or maturity."
7.Considering the fact that suit O.S.No.336/2008 filed by Late
S.W.Vijayakumar has been withdrawn by himself during his life-time
and the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India in the case of
accounts operated on 'either or survivor' basis, the impugned order
passed by the Writ Court does not warrant interference.
8. It is always open to the appellant to seek her remedy before
the appropriate forum, if it is permissible under law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.2190 of 2018
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
and
P.B. BALAJI, J.
(mrn)
9. With the above liberty, the writ appeal stands dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
C.M.P.No.16997 of 2018, is closed.
[D.K.K., J.] [P.B.B., J.]
11.07.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
mrn
To
The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Saibaba Colony,
Coimbatore 641 011
WA No.2190 of 2018
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
