Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranvir Kaur And Others vs Sangeeta And Another on 22 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057500
RSA-1137-2023 (O&M) 1 2024:PHHC:057500
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-1137-2023 (O&M)
Pronounced on: 22.04.2024
RanvirKaur and others
...Petitioners
Versus
Sangeeta and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RITU TAGORE
Present: Mr. N. S. Khandola, Advocate
for the appellants.
****
RITU TAGORE, J.
1. Appellants-defendants No.1 to 3 are assailing the concurrent
findings of the learned Courts below, whereby the suit for declaration and
permanent injunction filed by respondents No.1 and 2-plaintiffs was partly
decreed in their favour, and the first appeal preferred by the appellants, has
been dismissed.
2. For the sake of convenience, herein, parties to the lis, shall be
referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court.
3. In order to appreciate the issues involved in this appeal, it is
necessary to set out the relevant facts of the case.
4. According to plaintiff No.1-Sangeeta, on 23.01.2008, her
marriage was solemnized with Harnek Singh son of Ajaib Singh resident of
village Jhampur, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali, as per Sikh rites and
1 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057500
RSA-1137-2023 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:057500
ceremonies, and plaintiff No.2, a daughter, was born from the said wedlock.
Harnek Singh died on 24.11.2008.
5. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that Harnek Singh had joint
Monthly Income Scheme accounts at post office Mullanpur bearing
No.650920 and 650922 as well as a saving account No.1383968 with
defendants No.1 and 2, who are sisters, and defendant No.3, the mother of
deceased. The deceased used to operate the said accounts and withdraw
money from the same during his life time.
6. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that after the death of Harnek
Singh, defendants No.1 to 3 attempted to withdraw the amount from the
accounts (ibid), illegally in connivance with the postmaster, Mullanpur,
prejudicing the rights of plaintiffs as legal heirs of the deceased over the
amount in question, necessitating them to institute a suit for permanent
injunction against defendants and postmaster, Mullanpur. Further, it is
pleaded that during pendency of the said suit, as per orders of this Court, the
amount lying in post office was transferred in the Punjab National Bank,
defendant No.4. Thereafter, plaintiffs withdrew the aforementioned suit for
permanent injunction and filed the instant suit.
7. The plaintiffs have pleaded that they are legal heirs of deceased,
Harnek Singh, being his wife and daughter, thereof entitled to claim their
rights over the amount lying in the Bank. The defendants do not admit their
claim despite several requests made to them, which resulted in filing of the
instant suit.
8. Upon being put to notice by the learned trial Court, defendants
No.1 to 3, appeared and filed joint written statement and pleaded that
Harnek Singh was brother of defendants No.1 and 2 and son of defendant
No.3. They denied plaintiffs' relationship with deceased Harnek Singh by
2 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057500
RSA-1137-2023 (O&M) 3 2024:PHHC:057500
pleading that no marriage of Harnek Singh was performed with plaintiff
No.1. She is married to Deepak Shorie resident of House No.2645, Sector
47-C, Chandigarh and has one son from the said wedlock.
9. The defendants No.1 to 3 admitted the existence of post office
accounts in question being joint with deceased Harnek Singh. However, they
pleaded that as per post office rules and Monthly Income Scheme, after the
death of one of the joint account holders, the survivor of the joint account
holder, is entitled to operate the account and to receive the payment after the
death of co-depositor, being a legal operator of the account. It is pleaded that
defendantsNo.1 to 3 are legal heirs and survivors of the joint accounts and
are entitled to receive the amount and plaintiffs have no right to receive the
same. However, filing of a civil suit for permanent injunction and its
subsequent withdrawal by plaintiffs is admitted. The transfer of the amounts
to Punjab National Bank, defendant No.4 as per order dated 29.04.2009,
passed in CWP No.6424 of 2009, is also admitted by the defendants. By
challenging the locus standiof the plaintiffs to file the suit, they prayed for
its dismissal.
10. Defendant No.4-PunjabNational Bank, filed the written
statement and admitted receiving the amount from the defendants No.1 to 3
and depositing the same in FDRs, and further freezing the payment of said
FDRs as per Court order. It is pleaded by Bank that plaintiffs have no locus
standi and cause of action to file the suit and prayed for its dismissal.
11. The plaintiffs filed the replication and reiterated their version
by controverting the defendants' version. Since, the parties were at variance,
the learned trial Court framed the following issues:-
"I. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed for? OPP
3 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057500
RSA-1137-2023 (O&M) 4 2024:PHHC:057500
II. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive the amounts in the account
No.077900DP00002023 in the name of defendant No.1,
077900DP00002014 in the name of defendant No.3, 077900DP00002032
in the name of defendant No.2 transferred in the bank of defendant No.4 in
the name of the plaintiff? OPP
III. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for permanent injunction
as prayed for? OPP
IV. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD
V. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time bared? OPD
VI. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands?OPD
VII. Relief."
12. The parties presented the evidence in support of their averments,
as detailed in the judgment of learned trial Court. Upon appraisal of
evidence, learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 01.08.2019,
partly decreed the suit with costs, observing that plaintiffs and defendant
No.3, the mother, are Class-I heirs of the deceased and are entitled to claim
the amount left by the deceased Harnek Singh in the accounts in question,
and restrained the defendants No.1 to 3 from withdrawing or operating the
account maintained with Punjab National Bank (defendant No.4), until the
issuance of Succession Certificate in accordance with law.
13. The defendants appealed against the judgment and decree of
learned trial Court. On re-appraisal of the evidence, learned Appellate Court,
affirmed the findings of learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal.
Being aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the defendants
No.1 to 3 preferred this Regular Second Appeal.
14. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that opening of
three accounts in Post Office Mullanpur, jointly in the names of defendants
No.1 to 3 and their deceased brother Harnek Singh, with defendant No.1
(RanvirKaur) as nominee to receive the amount from the saving account
No.1383968, in case of death of Harnek Singh, is not in dispute. The amount
4 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057500
RSA-1137-2023 (O&M) 5 2024:PHHC:057500
is lying in the shape of FDR in Punjab National Bank (defendant No.4), as
per the order passed in CWP No.6424 of 2009. Learned counsel submitted
that both the Courts below failed to consider the fact that two accounts were
opened by defendants No.1 and 2 alongwith their deceased brother Harnek
Singh, in accordance with post office Monthly Income Account Rules, 1987,
which provides that if one of the depositor of the Monthly Income Scheme
dies; the account will be treated as single account in the name of the
surviving depositor from the date of death of the said depositor and the
surviving depositor will withdraw the excess amount in excess of the limit
for single depositor. Learned counsel stated that learned Courts below
overlooked the said rules and wrongly held that respondents are entitled to
claim the amount. Learned counsel stated that one of the accounts opened in
post office Mullanpur was joint with appellant No.2 and deceased Harnek
Singh and appellant No.1 was the nominee to receive the amount in case of
death of the account holder. This aspect was not taken into account and Post
Office Savings Bank General Rules, 1981 were wrongly interpreted by the
learned Courts below.
15. It is also contended by the learned counsel that relegating the
parties to obtain Succession Certificate without declaring the title and share
of the account-holder is bad in eyes of law, as such, issues cannot be decided
in summary proceedings of grant of Succession Certificate. The respective
title of the account holders could only be determined in civil suit.
Furthermore, granting the relief by way of Succession Certificate was
beyond the pleadings of the plaintiffs, which is not permissible under the
law. In support of his arguments, learned counsel referred to a judgment of
Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in State of Uttarakhand and another
Vs. Mandir Sri LaxmanSidhMaharaj, 2017(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 801.
5 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057500
RSA-1137-2023 (O&M) 6 2024:PHHC:057500
16. Learned counsel also urged that learned Courts below failed to
consider that suit filed by plaintiffs was time barred. It was filed after 6 years
from the death of deceased Harnek Singh, whereas a suit for declaration was
required to be filed within three years from death of deceased Harnek Singh.
Learned counsel also urged that learned Courts below wrongly held the
plaintiffs as legal heirs of deceased, whereas no cogent evidence was led by
plaintiffs to prove that plaintiff No.1 was married to Harnek Singh.
17. On the above submissions, it is stated by learned counsel for the
appellants that findings of learned Courts below are against facts and law,
and are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, a prayer is made to set them aside
by dismissing the suit of plaintiffs.
18. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for
appellants and have gone through the record, and hold that findings rendered
by learned trial Court which are affirmed by the learned first Appellate
Court are based on correct appreciation of evidence. They are factually and
legally valid for the reasons stated below.
(i) Learned counsel for the appellant-defendants No.1
to 3 failed to assail the findings recorded by learned trial Court,
holding plaintiff No.1 as wife and plaintiff No.2 as daughter of
deceased, Harnek Singh and, as such, they are Class-I heirs of
the deceased. For drawing aforesaid inferences and conclusions,
learned Courts below considered the unrebutted version of the
plaintiff No.1, who deposed that her marriage was solemnized
with Harnek Singh on 23.01.2008 and plaintiff No.2 was born
from the said wedlock, which received support from
unblemished testimonial account of PW-3, who attended the
marriage of the plaintiff No.1 with Harnek Singh and saw them
6 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057500
RSA-1137-2023 (O&M) 7 2024:PHHC:057500
cohabiting together as husband and wife. The learned Courts
below also noted the fact that in earlier suit (Ex.P-3/9) for
partition and possession filed by plaintiffs against defendants,
the plaintiffs were declared as legal heirs of Harnek Singh and
defendants did not challenge the aforesaid findings. SukvirKaur
the sister of deceased, while appearing as DW-1 admitted that
they never filed any suit challenging that plaintiff No.1 and
plaintiff No.2 are not the legally wedded wife and daughter of
her deceased brother, Harnek Singh. Her statement on the
whole, denying the marriage of plaintiff No.1 with deceased
Harnek Singh is casual projection of denial and avoidance,
which is not sufficient to believe the same. In view of the
evidence, it can be fairly held that learned Courts below rightly
declared plaintiffs as Class-I legal heirs of deceased Harnek
Singh.
ii) Once plaintiffs have been declared as Class-I LRs
of deceased, as such, they have locus standiand cause of action
to file the suit. The learned lower Courts, thus, rightly held so.
No illegality can be imputed to said findings.
iii) Now,falls for determination the spinal issue;
whether observation of the learned Courts below holding the
entitlement of plaintiffs to the amount lying in the bank,
pertaining to the joint account of deceased, is justified? Learned
counsel for the appellants-defendants No.1 to 3 has referred to
the Rule 16 of the Post Office Rules, pertaining to Monthly
Income account, which reads as under:-
7 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057500
RSA-1137-2023 (O&M) 8 2024:PHHC:057500
"If one of the depositors of a MIS account dies, the account
will be treated as a single account in the name of the
surviving depositor from the date of death of the said
depositor. When a report to this effect is received in the
post office, the Postmaster will ask the surviving depositor
to withdraw the excess amount in excess of the limit
prescribed for single depositor as this amount will not
carry interest from the date of death of the joint depositor.
The interest already paid on this excess amount will be
recovered or adjusted."
iii(1) The learned counsel also referred to para No.23 of the
judgment of the learned trial Court where the Court quoted the
Post Office Savings Bank General Rules, 1981 Chapter 8
Clause 15 providing that post office is required to give
precedence to the nominee over all other persons staking claims
on the amount while settling the deceased's claims cases and
such payment made to the nominee absolves the post office
from all future liability in respect of the deposit. The learned
counsel, thus, on the basis of the said Rules has urged that
learned Courts below erred in restraining the defendants No.1
to 3-nominee to deal with the amount of the deceased lying in
the post office schemes.
iii(2) The perusal of the above mentioned Rules would
show that in case of rival claims on the death of an account-
holder, the post office shall discharge its liability by giving
amount to the nominee(s). Likewise in case of 'Monthly
Income Scheme Account' on death of a joint account holder,
account will be treated single and surviving depositor is
8 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057500
RSA-1137-2023 (O&M) 9 2024:PHHC:057500
permitted to withdraw the access amount beyond the limit
prescribed for single depositor. These Rules do not provide that
legal heir(s) is/are not entitled to the amount left by the
deceased. A nominee is a temporary custodian appointed by
owner until succeeded by legal heirs. The rights of a nominee
are subordinate to those of beneficiaries of the law. In Shakti
Yezdani and another Vs. JayanandJayantSalgaonkar and
others, 2024(1) RCR (Civil) 270,it was held as under:-
"26. A consistent view appears to have been
taken by the Courts, while interpreting the related
provisions of nomination under different statutes. It is clear
from the referred judgments that the nomination so made
would not lead to the nominee attaining absolute title over
the subject property for which such nomination was made.
In other words, the usual mode of succession is not to be
impacted by such nomination. The legal heirs therefore
have not been excluded by virtue of nomination."
iii(3) In Vishin N. Khandchandani Vs.
VidyaLachmandasKhanchandani, 2000(4) RCR (Civil) 95 it
was held as:
"Any amount paid to the nominee after
making valid deductions it becomes the estate of the
deceased and devolves upon all persons who are entitled to
succession under law, custom or testament of the deceased
holder - Nominee has a prior right to receive the amount -
Other heirs of the holder have a right to claim the same as
per their right to succession to the estate of the holder -
Therefore the Act is no bar in grant of succession
certificate in favour of legal heirs/representatives of
9 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057500
RSA-1137-2023 (O&M) 10 2024:PHHC:057500
deceased holder to recover the amount of certificates from
the nominee - The law laid down in Sarbati Devi's case,
1984(1) SCC 424 holds the field and is equally applicable
to the nominee becoming entitled to the payment of
national savings certificates as well."
iii(4) Since, plaintiffs have been declared as class-I legal
heirs of deceased Harnek Singh, therefore, they are entitled to
lay claim over the amount left by the deceased in schemes and
the saving account. Accordingly, the findings of learned Courts
below are legally and factually valid.
iii(5) The learned Courts below has observed that both
plaintiffs and mother (defendant No.3) are the class-I heirs of
deceased and are entitled to succeed to property left by
deceased by way of natural succession. So, it is not the case
where the rights of the parties have not been determined. For
recovery of debts/ securities left by the decease, as per
provision of law, SuccessionCertificate is required. Learned
Appellate Court also observed that petitioners have already
filed a petition for grant of Succession Certificate. The Court
has inherent power to issue such orders or directions as may be
necessary for the ends of justice. Thus, directions given by the
Court to apply for Succession Certificate for obtaining the
amount in question left by the deceased cannot be regarded as
flawed. The plaintiffs have pleaded that on threat being issued
by defendants No.1 to 3 to withdraw the amount, they filed the
suit. It is an admitted fact that earlier, plaintiffs had filed a suit
for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants No.1to 3
10 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057500
RSA-1137-2023 (O&M) 11 2024:PHHC:057500
and Sub Post Mater Mullanpur from withdrawing that amount
in question. As per Article 58 of Limitation Act suit for
declaration is filed within three years when right to sue, first
accrues. In given facts and evidence presented on record, suit
does not appear to be time barred.
19. All these factors taken together, makes no ground to form a
different opinion to bring the findings of the learned Courts below within the
realm of perversity.
20. For the reasons aforementioned, I do not find any illegality or
perversity, in the concurrent findings, which are based on application of oral
and documentary evidence. I affirm the findings and find no ground for
interference much less involvement of any substantial question of law.
21. Resultantly, there is no merit in the appeal and is, hereby,
dismissed.
22. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, are also disposed
of accordingly.
(RITU TAGORE)
JUDGE
22.04.2024
Rimpal
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
11 of 11
