At, High Court of Judicature at Madras
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
For the Petitioner: I.C. Vasudevan, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 & R3, G. Senthamil Arasu, Advocate.
Judgment Text
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, to direct the 1st respondent to repay the fixed deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- made by the Palaniammal vide receipt No.0539960 bearing RDP No.585/1998 dated 07.12.1998 with compound interest at the rate of 11.5% per annum from the date of deposit to the date of repayment to the petitioner by considering the petitioner’s representation dated 08.04.2016 in accordance with law within the time fixed by this Court.)
1. This writ petition has been filed for mandamus seeking for a direction to direct the first respondent to repay the fixed deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- made by Palaniammal vide receipt No.0539960 bearing RDP No.585 of 1998 dated 07.12.1998.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that a fixed deposit for a sum of Rs.10,000/- was taken by Palaniammal with Indian Oversees Bank, Padai Veedu Branch (0796), Thiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District vide receipt No.0539960 bearing RDP No.585 of 1998 dated 07.12.1998.
3. According to the petitioner, Palaniammal appointed her nephew Mr.K.Palaniappan as the nominee for the aforesaid fixed deposit. According to the petitioner, Palaniammal and K.Palaniappan died. According to him, he is the only legal heir of K.Palaniappan, who was a nominee of Palaniammal. According to him, he furnished the copies of the death certificate of both Palaniammal as well as K.Palaniappan and legal heirship certificate of K.Palaniappan to the respondent Bank.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that Palaniammal died without leaving any legal heir and it is his case that he is the only legal heir of the deceased K.Palaniappan. Therefore, according to him, he is entitled for encashment of the fixed deposit receipt in his favour. It is his case that despite several representations, the respondents failed to encash the fixed deposit receipts and remit the proceeds to the petitioner’s account. In such circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed.
5. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the respondent Bank admitting that the fixed deposit dated 07.12.1998 was taken in the name of Mrs.Palaniammal for a sum of Rs.10,000/- for a period of three years. They admit that the petitioner is the legal heir of K.Palaniappan, who was the nominee under the fixed deposit taken by Palaniammal. They have also admitted that both Palaniammal as well as K.Palaniappan died. Along with the typed set of papers filed by the petitioner, the petitioner has produced the death certificate of Palaniammal as well as K.Palaniappan and also produced the legal heirship certificate of K.Palaniappan. However, they have stated in the counter affidavit that the deposit which was alleged to have been made by Palaniammal is untraceable in the branch since the entries made before 2006 were not computerised. They have stated that the third respondent has sought for the details regarding the deposit of said account from balance sheet Management Department Central Office and the details are till date not known.
6. Heard Mr.I.C.Vasudevan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.G.Senthamil Arasu, learned counsel for the respondents.
7. As seen from the counter affidavit filed by the respondents they have not disputed that Mrs.Palaniammal took a fixed deposit in her name on 07.12.1998 for a period of three years with the respondent for a sum of Rs.10,000/-. The original fixed deposit receipt has also been handed over by the petitioner to the respondents which is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. The respondents have also admitted in their counter affidavit that Palaniammal and the nominee of Palaniammal i.e., K.Palaniappan both have died. The petitioner has also produced the legal heirship certificate of K.Palaniappan to the respondents Bank. This fact has also not been disputed by the respondents as seen from the counter affidavit as well as from the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents. The only defence raised by the respondents is that the deposit which was alleged to have been made by Palaniammal for a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 07.12.1998 is untraceable in the branch since the entries made before 2006 were not computerised. Excepting for the said defence, the respondents have not raised any objection for encashment of the fixed deposit of Rs.10,000/- standing in the name of Palaniammal and for handing over the proceeds of the encashed fixed deposit to the petitioner.
8. Since the petitioner has already been handed over the original fixed deposit receipt dated 07.12.1998 for a sum of Rs.10,000/- standing in the name of Mrs.Palaniammal, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled for the proceeds of the encashed fixed deposit receipt for a sum of Rs.10,000/- standing in the name of the Mrs.Palaniammal as he has produced all the necessary documents required for encashment and for
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
remittance in his favour. 9. For the foregoing reasons, this Court directs the third respondent to encash the fixed deposit receipt dated 07.12.1998 for a sum of Rs.10,000/- standing in the name of Mrs.Palaniammal and after encashment issue a banker’s cheque favouring the petitioner for the said amount together with accrued interest within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. With the aforesaid direction, the instant writ petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.