Rajasthan High Court
Naitik vs Icici Bank Ltd And Anr on 27 February, 2024
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6350/2017
Naitik S/o Late Shri Maheshchand Gupta,(Minor) Through
His Next Friend/guardian Grand Father Nandkishore
Gupta S/o Khairatimal, Aged about 76 years, R/o Mohalla
Brahmchari, Near Soorsagar Ki Pal, Alwar Raj.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Icici Bank Limited Branch Opp. Company Bagh, Alwar
Through Authorized Representative
2. Shashi Bala W/o Late Shri Maheshchand Gupta D/o
Chhaju Ram Gupta, R/o Kumharon Ka Mohalla,
Laxmangarh, Distt. Alwar Raj.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Yadav, Adv. with
Ms. Anisha Yadav, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aatish Jain, Adv.
Mr. Mitesh Sharma, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
Date Of Judgment 27/02/2024
1. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant-applicant
through his next friend/guardian grandfather (for short 'the
applicant') under Section 384 of Indian Succession Act against the
order dated 30.10.2017 passed by District Judge, Alwar (for short
'the trial court') in Succession Application No.38/114/2013 titled
as "Naitik Vs. ICICI Bank Limited and Anr.", whereby the trial court
dismissed the application filed by the applicant under Section 372
of Indian Succession Act.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant
had filed an application under Section 372 of Indian Succession
(2 of 3) [CMA-6350/2017]
Act in which it was clearly mentioned that the non-applicant/
respondent No.2(for short 'the non-applicant') is mother of the
applicant. Maheshchand Gupta, who was father of the applicant
had committed suicide on account of harassment by non-
applicant-Shashi Bala. Learned counsel for the applicant further
submits that in this regard, FIR was lodged against the non-
applicant for the offence under Section 306 IPC. Learned counsel
for the applicant further submits that as per Section 25 of the
Indian Succession Act, the non-applicant is not entitled to get
money in succession but the trial court vide order dated
30.10.2017 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the
applicant on the sole ground that the deceased-Maheshchand
Gupta had appointed the non-applicant as nominee of his fixed
deposits. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that
nominee is the custodian of the fixed deposits. As per the Indian
Succession Act, the applicant is entitled to get a Succession
Certificate regarding fixed deposits. Alternatively, learned counsel
for the applicant also submits that as per Indian Succession Act,
the applicant is entitled to get equal share of fixed deposits with
non-applicant. So, the order dated 30.10.2017 passed by the trial
court be set-aside.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon
the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Shri Vishin N. Khanchandani & Anv. Vs. Vidya
Lachmandas Khanchandani & Anr. in Special Leave
Petition(Civil) No.12766/1999 and in the case of Ram
Chander Talwar & Anr. Vs. Devender Kumar Talwar & Ors
reported in (2010) 10 SCC 671.
(3 of 3) [CMA-6350/2017]
4. Learned counsel for the non-applicant has opposed the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and
submitted that the deceased-Maheshchand Gupta had appointed
the non-applicant (wife of the deceased-Maheshchand Gupta) as
nominee of his fixed deposits. So, the trial court vide order dated
30.10.2017 rightly dismissed the application filed by applicant. So,
the appeal filed by the applicant be dismissed.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel for the non-
applicant and perused the impugned order dated 30.10.2017.
6. The trial court vide order dated 30.10.2017 dismissed the
application filed by the applicant on the sole ground that the non-
applicant was appointed as nominee of fixed deposits made by
deceased-Maheshchand Gupta. The applicant is a son of
deceased-Maheshchand Gupta. So, in my considered opinion, the
applicant as well as non-applicant both are entitled to get equal
shares of the fixed deposits of deceased-Maheshchand Gupta. So,
the order dated 30.10.2017 passed by the trial court deserves to
be set-aside and the appeal filed by the applicant deserves to be
partly allowed.
7. The appeal filed by the applicant is partly allowed. The order
dated 30.10.2017 passed by the trial court is set-aside and the
trial court is directed to issue a Succession Certificate in favour of
the applicant to get his equal share of the fixed deposits made by
the deceased-Maheshchand Gupta, after taking the requisite court
fee.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Gourav/206
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
