Madras High Court
R. Neelammal vs J. Suresh on 20 November, 2024
Author: R. Hemalatha
Bench: R.Hemalatha
S.A.No.690 of 2019 and C.M.P. No.13003 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
S.A.No.690 of 2019
and
C.M.P. No.13003 of 2019
R. Neelammal ...Appellant
Vs.
1. J. Suresh
2. The Branch Manager
Central Cooperative Bank,
Chetpet, Thiruvannamalai District.
3. The Special Officer,
Central Cooperative Bank,
Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamali District.
4. The Joint Registrar
Central Cooperative Bank,
Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamali District. ...
Respondents
Page 1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.690 of 2019 and C.M.P. No.13003 of 2019
Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, 1908 against the
decree and judgment dated 26.02.2019 passed in A.S. No.83 of 2017, on
the file of the Additional District Court, Fast Track Court, Arani (A.S.
No.9 of 2016, District Court, Thiruvannamalai), reversing the decree
and judgment dated 17.12.2013 passed in O.S.No.36 of 2009, on the file
of the Subordinate Court, Arani.
For Appellant : Mr.M. Ganesh
for Mr. N. Manokaran
For R1 : Ms. U. Meharunisha
for Mr. K.S. Ganesh Babu
For R2 : No appearance
For R3 and R4 : Mr. P. Gurunathan
Additional Government Pleader (C.S.)
JUDGMENT
The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S. No.36/2009 on the file of
the Subordinate Court, Arani and she filed the said suit claiming half
share in the maturity value of the suit deposit in the second defendant
bank under Receipt number 123063 dated 22.01.2007 made by her
husband Ramakrishna Reddiar (since deceased) along with the first
defendant J. Suresh. She also prayed for a permanent injunction
restraining the second defendant bank from disbursing the entire deposit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.690 of 2019 and C.M.P. No.13003 of 2019
amount to the first defendant and for costs.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per
their ranking in the trial court and at appropriate places, their rank in the
present second appeal would also be indicated.
3.The case of the plaintiff in a nutshell is as follows :
3.1. The plaintiff is the wife of late Ramakrishna Reddiar.
Ramakrishna Reddiar owned several properties including a rice mill.
Since Ramakrishna Reddiar and the plaintiff did not have any issues,
Ramakrishna Reddiar's sister's sons were assisting him in his business.
Therefore, Ramakrishna Reddiar made several deposits including a sum
of Rs.4,95,000/- with the second defendant bank under the scheme
'valarmathi deposit' on 22.01.2007 for 13 months. The said Fixed
Deposit was made under 'either or survivor' scheme.
3.2. Ramakrishna Reddiar died intestate on 03.12.2007.
According to the plaintiff, though Ramakrishna Reddiar and the first
defendant jointly made the deposit with the second defendant bank, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.690 of 2019 and C.M.P. No.13003 of 2019
first defendant is refusing to give half share to her in the said deposit.
Therefore, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 03.03.2008 (Ex.A1) to
the second defendant bank requesting them to pay half share in the fixed
deposit. Since the said notice did not evoke any response from the
second defendant, she filed the suit.
4. In the trial court, the defendants 3 and 4 remained absent
and were set ex-parte. The suit was resisted by the first respondent on
the following grounds:
i. The suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable.
ii. Late Ramakrishna Reddiar (the maternal uncle of the first
defendant) and the family of the first defendant were living jointly
in Devimangalam village and they were all doing business jointly.
iii. Ramakrishna Reddiar, during his life time, deposited various
amounts in the names of the first defendant and his brothers.
iv. Since Ramakrishna Reddiar was a senior citizen, his name was
added in the suit deposit as he would be getting 1% additional
interest from the bank.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.690 of 2019 and C.M.P. No.13003 of 2019
v. Since the said Fixed Deposit was made under 'either or survivor'
scheme, the plaintiff cannot claim any right over the same after the
death of her husband Ramakrishna Reddiar. In fact Ramakrishna
Reddiar, during his life time, handed over the Fixed Deposit
receipt to the first defendant. Therefore, the suit filed by the
plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
4.1.The second defendant in his written statement made the
following contentions.
i. Late Ramakrishna Reddiar and the first defendant jointly deposited
a sum of Rs.4,95,000/- under Receipt number 123063 with the
second defendant Bank. The said deposit was made for a period of
13 months.
ii. Unless the original Fixed Deposit receipt is produced by the
plaintiff, the bank cannot disburse the amount to her.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed
necessary issues and posted the case for trial.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.690 of 2019 and C.M.P. No.13003 of 2019
6. The plaintiff examined herself and one another witness
and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A7. The first defendant examined himself and
one another witness and marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B3.
7. The learned trial court judge, after analysing the
oral/documentary evidence on record, decreed the suit in favour of the
plaintiff, vide his decree and judgment dated 17.12.2013, on the
following grounds.
i. It is admitted that the plaintiff is the wife of late Ramakrishna
Reddiar and therefore she comes under Class I heir.
ii. Though the first defendant had contended that the suit Fixed
Deposit was made from the joint family income of his family, he
has not explained to the satisfaction of the court as to why
Ramakrishna Reddiar's name was also indicated in the Fixed
Deposit.
iii. After the death of Ramakrishna Reddiar, his wife is entitled to half
share in the deposit amount of Rs.4,95,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.690 of 2019 and C.M.P. No.13003 of 2019
8.Aggrieved over the decree and judgment passed by the trial
court judge, the first defendant filed an appeal in A.S.No.9/2016, before
the District Court, Thiruvannamalai. Subsequently it was transferred to
the Additional District Court, Thiruvannamalai, and renumbered as
A.S.No.83/2017. The learned Additional District Judge, after analysing
the evidence on record, allowed the appeal, vide his decree and judgment
dated 26.02.2019, on the following grounds:
i. It is contended by the first defendant that in order to get 1%
additional interest Ramakrishna Reddiar's name was included in
the deposit.
ii. Since the account was under 'either or survivor' scheme, the first
defendant who is one of the depositors, is entitled to get the full
maturity value of the fixed deposit.
iii. As per the the 'either or survivor' scheme, the person who is alive is
entitled to get the entire maturity value of the fixed deposit and
therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to get any amount.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.690 of 2019 and C.M.P. No.13003 of 2019
9. Aggrieved over the decree and judgment passed by the first
appellate court, the present second appeal is filed by the plaintiff.
10. The second appeal was admitted by this Court on the
following substantial questions of law:
" (a) Whether the first appellate court is right in
dismissing the suit by giving undue credence to the
interpolation of the word 'Either or Survivor' found in the
joint deposit receipt issued in the name of late Ramakrishna
Reddiar and the first defendant?
(b) Has not the first appellate court committed an
error in non-suiting the plaintiff who happens to be the class I
legal heir of the joint deposit holder late Ramakrishna
Reddiar?
(c) Whether the interpretation given by the first
appellate court to the word "Either or Survivor' is legally
sustainable in law?
(d) Whether the first appellate court has committed
an error in holding that the suit has not been properly valued
for the purpose of court fees, particularly, when there is a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.690 of 2019 and C.M.P. No.13003 of 2019
legal bar to raise that issue under Section 12(2) of the
Tamilnadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act,1955?
11. Heard Mr.M. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, Ms. U. Meharunisha, learned counsel appearing for the first
respondent and Mr. P. Gurunathan, learned Additional Government
Pleader, appearing for the respondents 3 and 4.
12. Mr.M. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
relied on the decision in Parvathi vs. Valliyammal and another reported
in 2005(1) CTC 684 and contended that the fixed deposit receipt is
merely a written acknowledgment by the bank that it holds a certain sum
to the use of its customers and that the bank is thus a debtor to the
account holders in respect of the amount deposited - a debt which is
repayable by the bank to the account holders with interest on expiry of an
agreed period and that in order to obtain a valid discharge under a
tripartite agreement, the bank may be right in disbursing the amount to
the survivor. But, once controversy arises, inter se the depositors, we
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.690 of 2019 and C.M.P. No.13003 of 2019
have to anticipate a gift deed in favour of the survivor. Unless there is a
gift, the survivor can only receive the amount as a trustee of the surviving
other heirs of the deceased depositor and the surviving depositor cannot
have any exclusive interest over the same simply because it was
deposited under the scheme "either or survivor".
12.1. He also relied on the decision of this Court in Sekar @
Arun Sekar vs. Meenammal and another (S.A(MD) No.191 of 2007
dated 13.03.2019) wherein this Court has held that it is settled law that a
person, in the fixed deposit under 'either or survivor' scheme, with a bank
the survivor is only a trustee to receive the amount on behalf of the other
legal heirs and the survivor cannot get any exclusive right.
13. Per contra, Ms. U. Meharunisha, learned counsel for the
first respondent contended that the fixed deposit was made by
Ramakrishna Reddiar only for the welfare of the first defendant and
therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to get any share in the fixed deposit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.690 of 2019 and C.M.P. No.13003 of 2019
14. It is pertinent to point out that, in the written statement of
the first defendant, there is no specific pleading that the fixed deposit was
made by late Ramakrishna Reddiar for the welfare of the first defendant.
On the other hand, it was contended by the first defendant that late
Ramakrishna Reddiar was managing the properties of joint family
properties of the first defendant's family and made certain deposits with
the second defendant bank. According to the first defendant,
Ramakrishna Reddiar's name was included in the deposit since he will be
getting additional interest of 1%. It is admitted that late Ramakrishna
Reddiar and the first defendant deposited a sum of Rs.4,95,000/- with the
second defendant bank under 'either or survivor' scheme for 13 months.
Before the maturity of the fixed deposit, Ramakrishna Reddiar died. The
first defendant claims absolute right over the entire amount as he is the
'survivor'. In the decision in Parvathi vs. Valliyammal and another
(cited supra), it has been held that in the absence of a specific gift deed in
favour of the survivor, the survivor cannot claim any exclusive right over
the maturity value of the fixed deposit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.690 of 2019 and C.M.P. No.13003 of 2019
14.1. Similarly in the decision in Sekar vs. Meenammal and
another (cited supra) this Court has held that the survivor is only a
trustee to receive the amount on behalf of the other legal heirs and he
cannot claim any exclusive right. Admittedly Ramakrishna Reddiar had
not executed any gift deed in favour of the first defendant. In the
circumstances, the survivor (the first defendant) can only receive the
amount as a trustee of the other legal heirs of late Ramakrishna Reddiar.
Thus the plaintiff, who is the legal heir of Ramakrishna Reddiar is
entitled to get half share in the fixed deposit amount of Rs.4,95,000/-.
The first appellate court had committed an error by not adverting its
attention to the decisions consistently rendered by this Court and
therefore, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the
plaintiff.
15. In the result,
i. the Second Appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently connected
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.690 of 2019 and C.M.P. No.13003 of 2019
miscellaneous petition is closed.
ii. The decree and judgment dated 26.02.2019 passed in A.S. No.83
of 2017, on the file of the Additional District Court, Fast Track
Court, Arani, is set aside.
iii. The decree and judgment dated 17.12.2013 passed in O.S.No.36 of
2009, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Arani, is upheld.
20.11.2024
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
bga
To
1. The Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Arani
2. The Subordinate Court, Arani
3. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.690 of 2019 and C.M.P. No.13003 of 2019
R. HEMALATHA, J.
bga
and
20.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
