IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI

WRIT PETITION No.5967 of 2024

Between:

1. BETHA MAHALAKSHMI, W/O LATE KONA SRINIVASA

KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS OCCUPATION

TEACHER, R/O H.NO.171, GANDHINAGAR COLONY,

NELLIMARLA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, VIZIAN AGARAM

DISTRICT

...PETITIONER

AND

1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, REP BY ITS BRANCH

MANAGER, MAIN BRANCH, PARVATHIPURAM,

VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH

2. SEEMALA RAMADEVI, W/O LATE BABU SUDARSANARAO,

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O

SUNDARANARAYANAPUR AM, BELAGAM,

PARVATHIPURAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT

...RESPONDENT(S):

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 03.09.2024

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL :

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers

may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be

marked to Law Reporters / Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether Her Lordship wish to

see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No

_______________________________________

JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

2

* HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

+ WRIT PETITION No.5967 of 2024

% 03.09.2024

Between:

1. BETHA MAHALAKSHMI, W/O LATE KONA SRINIVASA

KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS OCCUPATION

TEACHER, R/O H.NO.171, GA NDHINAGAR COLONY,

NELLIMARLA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM

DISTRICT

...PETITIONER

AND

1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, REP BY ITS BRANCH

MANAGER, MAIN BRANCH, PARVATHIPURAM,

VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH

2. SEEMALA RAMADEVI, W/O LATE BABU SUDARSANARAO,

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O

SUNDARANARAYANAPURAM, BELAGAM,

PARVATHIPURAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT

...RESPONDENT(S):

! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri N. Bharath Simha Reddy

^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri Venkata Rama Rao Kota.

Sri Venkateswarlu Kota

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1.

2.

3.

3

APHC010115362024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3329]

TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

WRIT PETITION NO: 5967/2024

Between:

Betha Mahalakshmi ...PETITIONER

AND

The State Bank Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. N BHARATH SIMHA REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA

2. VENKATESWARLU KOLLA

This Court made the following order:

This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India is filed for the following relief:

“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the

nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the

respondents 3 to 6 herein in interfering with the life and

liberty of the petitioners and thereby harassing them at the

4

instance of 7 to 10 respondents herein and also forcibly

taken away the motor bike of the 1

st

petitioner bearing No A

P 05EF 3060 and Cell No 9885709429 unauthorized custody

in the 4th respondent Police Station in view of orders in M P

NO 2270/2015 IN DVC 5/2015 Dt 27/1/2016 of XXV

Metropolitan Magistrate Kukatapally at Miyapur is illegal

arbitrary untenable amounting to interference with civil

dispute and violative of Article 14 21 and 300 A of the

Constitution of India and consequently direct the

respondents 3 to 6 not to harass and interfere with the life

and liberty of the petitioners in any manner and handed over

the motor bike of the 1

st

petitioner bearing No A P 05EF

3060 and Cell No 9885709429 unauthorized custody in the

4

th

Police Station to the petitioners and pass such...”

2. The petitioner herein is wife of the deceased and the

respondent No.2 is sister of the deceased. The deceased while

working as teacher died on 07.03.2020 leaving the petitioner herein

and two (02) minor children as class-I legal heirs and respondent

No.2 herein and another sister as class-II legal heirs. While so, the

deceased opened one savings bank account bearing

No.32450965366 with SBI Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District

wherein an amount of Rs.50,000/- is lying as credit amount and the

petitioner also deposited an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- as fixed term

deposit with the bank vide For bearing Nos.32451110819,

5

32451116606, 32451117350 and 32451148662 at respondent

No.1/bank. After death of the deceased, the petitioner herein being

class-I legal heir submitted a representation to the respondent/bank

claiming disbursement of amount lying in the deceased bank

account. Similarly, respondent No.2 being a class-II legal heir also

submitted a representation to the respondent/bank claiming

disbursement of amount, since she was nominated as nominee to

the fixed deposits. In view of the claim and counter claim by the

petitioner and respondent No.2, the respondent No.1/bank neither

disbursed the amount nor disposed of their representations by

passing any speaking order and requested to get succession

certificate through Court of law. Having no other option, the

petitioner herein along with her two (02) minor children filed SOP

No.5 of 2020, on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge,

Parvathipuram, seeking right of succession being class-I legal heirs

in respect of the deceased wherein the respondent Nos.1 and 2

herein were made as party respondents to the said SOP. Similarly,

respondent No.2 also invoked jurisdiction of the Court of law and

filed OS No.4 of 2021 on the file of learned II Additional District

Court, Parvatipuram seeking declaration of title in respect of

properties bequeathed by the deceased, wherein the petitioner

6

herein is defendant to the said suit. After considering the facts and

circumstances of the case, the Court below passed order dated

17.11.2021 granting succession in favour of the petitioner by holding

as under:

SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE

Whereas the petitioners applied on 21

st

day of

October, 2020, by invoking Sec.372 of Indian Succession

Act, praying the court to issue Succession Certificate in

their favour, in respect of the schedule mentioned

amounts lying with State Bank of India, Main Branch,

parvatipuram, relating to the deceased Kona late Srinivasa

Kumar, S/o. Late Sitaramamurthy.

SCHEDULE

An amount of Rs.50,000/- in SB A/c.32450965366;

and an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- in fixed deposits (totaling

to Rs.20,50,000/-) lying with State Bank of India, Main

Branch, Parvatipuram.

The petition is allowed directing the office to issue

Succession Certificate in favour of the petitioners, in order

to receive the amounts mentioned annexure i.e.,

Rs.50,000/- lying in SB Account No.32450965366 and

Rs.20,00,000/- lying in fixed deposit with State Bank of

India, Main Branch, Main Road, Parvathipuram, and the

1

st

petitioner is permitted to receive those amounts on her

behalf and on behalf of her minor children., viz., petitioners

2 and 3 herein, after completion of legal formalities.”

7

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in view

of issuance of succession certificate, the petitioner is entitled to

receive the schedule amounts as per the order of the Court below

dated 17.11.2021. He further submits that even though the Court

below issued succession certificate in favour of the petitioner, so far

respondent No.1 for the reasons best known to it neither disbursed

amounts nor challenged the order of the Court below dated

17.11.2021 which become final. He further submits that once

competent Court passed an order granting succession certificate in

favour of the petitioner, the respondent No.1 has no other option

except to disburse the said amounts in favour of the petitioner.

Therefore, respondent No.1 shall be directed to disburse amount in

favour of the petitioner in view of the succession certificate granted

by the Court below.

4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for

respondent No.1/bank filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated as

under:

“ 3. I submit that in reply to Para Nos.1 to 3 of the

Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, averments

made in these paragraphs are born on record, there is no

dispute about the Petitioner's husband opened 4 Special

Term Deposit Receipts(STDRs) and SB Account vide

8

Account No: 32450965366 in our Branch. As per record

total amount in both STDRs and Saving Bank Account is

Rs.21.84 lacs. I submit that while opening STDRs and

Saving Bank, Petitioner's Husband Shri Kona Srinivasa

Kumar made Nomination in favour of K.Rama Devi, i.e

Respondent No.2 herein above, who is sister of Kona

Srinivasa Kumar.

4. I submit that after death of Shri Kona Srinivasa Kumar

Petitioner approached us for release of the above stated

amount, having verified records, we have not processed

her request since Shri Kona Srinivasa Kumar made

Nomination and as per Section 45ZA(2) of the Banking

Regulation Act, 1949, which reads as" Notwithstanding

anything contained in any other law for the time being in

force or in any disposition, whether testamentary or

otherwise, in respect of such deposit, where a nomination

made in the prescribed manner purports to confer on any

person the right to receive the amount of deposit from the

banking company, the nominee shall, on the death of the

sole depositor or, as the case may, on the death of all

depositors, become entitled to all the rights of the sole

depositor or, as the case may be, of the depositors, in

relation to such deposit to the exclusion of all other

persons, unless the nomination is varied or cancelled in the

prescribed manner." At this juncture, Petitioner field S.O.P

No.5 of 2020 on the file of Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge

Court, Vizianagaram against the Bank and Respondent

No.2, who is the Nominee as per the Bank records.”

9

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 also filed counter

affidavit wherein it is stated as under:

“3. I submit that I am sister of deceased Srinivasa

Kumar, who is husband of petitioner. Petitioner deserted

her husband long back and did not see his face even he

was hospitalized inspite of information and requests

made by me and my sister number of times. I and my

sister looked after his welfare during that period. Vexed

with attitude of petitioner, deceased Srinivasa Kumar

executed a registered will Dt. 2-3-2010 bequeathing

some properties to me and my sister and some

properties to his daughter and son. As per the will I am

entitled to all movable properties and valuable securities.

Besides that in respect of the Special Term Deposits

made by deceased Srinivasa Kumar I was nominated as

nominee. It was not varied or cancelled during his life

time. So I am entitled to the amount kept in deposits

mentioned supra.

4. I further submit that based will executed by my

deceased brother Srinvas Kumar I and my sister filed

O.S. No. 4/2021 on the file of II Addl. District Court,

Parvatipuram seeking declaration of our title to the

properties bequeathed to us. Petitioner is party to the

said suit. In the said suit genuineness or otherwise of the

will executed by my deceased brother Srinvas Kumar is

in issue. It will decide the right of petitioner to claim

amount under deposits with 1st respondent.”

10

6. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1/bank

reiterated that the submissions made in the counter affidavit by

stating that since IA No.319 of 2022 for setting aside the ex parte

order of the Court below dated 17.11.2021 filed by the respondent

No.2 is pending for consideration; as such, this respondent is

unable to disburse the amount in pursuance of the order dated

17.11.2021 of the Court below in SOP No.5 of 2020. He further

submits that respondent No.1 is ready to discharge its duties as per

the orders of this Court.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that since the

petitioner abandoned the deceased long back, respondent No.2 and

her sister look after the welfare of the deceased which is evident not

only from the proceedings i.e., registered Will dated 02.03.2010

which was executed by the deceased in favour of the respondent

No.2 herein and also she made as nominee in respect of the fixed

deposits as per Section 45ZA of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.

He further asserts that the respondent No.1 is under statutory

obligation to disburse amounts in favour of the nominee which

excludes all the types legal heirs of the deceased. But for one

reason or the other, the respondent No.1/bank dodged the

disbursement in favour of this respondent contrary to the object of

11

under Section 45ZA the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. He further

contends that the said succession certificate granted in favour of the

petitioner is an ex parte order, wherein the respondent No.2 herein

filed IA No.319 of 2022 seeking to set aside the ex parte order.

Even though it was filed in the year 2022, the Court below has not

decided it so far. Therefore, it cannot be said that an ex-parte order

dated 17.11.2021 passed by the Court below in SOP No.5 of 2020

has become final. As such, the petitioner herein is not entitled for

any relief as prayed in the Writ Petition and the Writ Petition is liable

to be dismissed.

8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing

Counsel for respondent No.1/bank and learned counsel for

respondent No.2. Perused the entire material available on record.

9. The fact remains is that the petitioner herein is the wife of

the deceased and they were blessed with two (02) minor children

namely K.Jahnavi and K.Sai Vishnu Chaitanya all of them were

classified as class-I legal heirs of the deceased as per Section 10 of

the Hindu Succession Act. Admittedly, respondent No.2 herein is

the sister of the deceased as such she is the class-II legal heir of

the deceased. It appears that the respondent No.2 was made as

nominee in respect of fixed deposits, but in view of the claim and

12

counter claim by class-I legal heirs i.e., petitioner herein both the

parties were directed to obtain succession certificate for

disbursement of amounts. Pursuant to the direction by the

respondent No.1/Bank, they filed S.O.P. on the file of learned Senior

Judge, Vijayawada wherein the petitioner and her two children were

granted succession certificate by the Court below on 17.11.2021.

Even after receipt of the “Succession Certificate” by the Bank which

was issued in favour of the petitioner and two others for

disbursement of amount as envisaged, being party respondent to

the SOP. Even after lapse of three (03) years, respondent

No.1/bank did not disburse the amounts in favour of the petitioner

and two children, the said inaction of respondent No.1 is contrary to

the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, arbitrary, highhanded in nature

and in violation of the order of the Court below which is invited by

itself. It is further observed that respondent No.1 even after receipt

of the order of the Court below dated 17.11.2021, on the guise of a

petition for setting aside of the ex parte order filed by respondent

No.2 is pending and sitting over the matter even after lapse of three

years, without disbursing the deposit amounts is nothing but

dereliction of statutory duties and infringing the fundamental rights

guaranteed under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India on

13

the part of respondent No.1. It is settled proposition of law that, due

to sudden death of the bread-winner of the family, the entire family

will be put in harness and struggling for their livelihood, therefore the

bereaved family should be addressed with immediate effect.

Therefore, it is recognized the right of livelihood is a Human Right

as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Therefore, the legal heirs are entitled for immediate financial

assistance to come out of their harness and to meet their livelihood.

Contrary in the present case, even though the son and daughter of

the deceased being minors and pursuing their school education,

being a statutory public authority, the respondent No.1 sit over the

matter years together without disbursing the amounts, even though

they are entitled as per the order of the Court below dated

17.11.2021 which is in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of

India apart from violation of the order of Court below and caused an

action of “Red-Tapism” and against the Human Right. The learned

counsel for respondent No.2 also found fault with the action of the

respondent No.1 which did not adhere in accordance with Section

45ZA(2) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.

10. For better understanding, Section 45ZA(2) of the Banking

Regulation Act, 1949 is extracted hereunder:

14

“Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for

the time being inforce or in any disposition, whether

testamentary or otherwise in respect of such deposit,

where a nomination in the prescribed manner purports to

confer on any person the right to receive the amount of

deposit from the banking company, the nominee shall, on

the death of sole depositor or, as the case may, on the

death of all depositors, become entitled to all the right of

sole depositor or, as the case may be, of the depositors,

unless the nomination is carried or cancelled in the

prescribed manner.”

11. The contention of learned counsel for respondent No.2 that

according to Section 45ZA(2) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949

respondent No.2 being a nominee is entitled to receive the

deposited amounts is valid and sustainable but it cannot be

accepted in toto for the reason if succession was gratned in view of

the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.5519 of 2024 dated

07.05.2024 and in view of the judgment of High Court of Madras in

A.No.2468 of 2020 in OP No.953 of 2018 dated 11.12.2020.

Moreover, it is a settled proposition of law, even though this

amounts received by the nominee the same should be distributed

among Class-I legal heirs.

15

12. This Court by its judgment dated 07.05.2024 in

W.P.No.5519 of 2024 held as under:

“9. In view of the above said facts and circumstances,

it is to be seen that the above said objectors have not

thereafter approached the authorities concerned with

any orders in favour of them to make a claim for the said

amount of the deceased/Katabathina Janardhan lying

with the respondent No.4. Whereas, the petitioner

approached with the above said documents stating that

there is a Succession Certificate in favour of the

petitioner. It appears that the objectors who are said to

be claiming the amount of the deceased/Katabathina

Janardhan have not even taken the necessary steps

seeking to set aside the above said Succession

Certificate. There are no contrary orders passed by the

competent authorities in favour of the above said

objectors and also they have not filed any objection

petition or implead application in this Court. In view of

the same, there is no reason to withhold the payments

under the above said Succession Certificate in favour of

the petitioner by the respondent Nos.2 to 4.

10. For the foregoing reasons, the respondent Nos.2

to 4 are directed to release the amount as per the

Succession Certificate to the petitioner and by taking

necessary undertaking from the petitioner, the same can

be released as expeditiously as possible preferably

within a period of one(01) month from the date of receipt

of this order.”

16

13. The High Court of Madras in the case of Vidyaa Hari Iyer

Vs. Sundaram Finance Limited & Ors in A.No.2468 of 2020 in OP

No.953 of 2018 dated 11.12.2020 held as under:

“ 2. The contention of the applicant is that after the

death of her husband, the first respondent failed to

release the deposit made by her husband on the ground

that the second respondent was the nominee, The

applicant has filed an Original Petition in O.P. No. 953 of

2018 for issuance of Succession Certificate. The Court by

an Order dated 26.12.2019 issued the Succession

Certificate. Despite the certificate produced, the first

respondent did not release the amount. It is further

alleged by the applicant in the application that her

husband had made various fixed deposits. After the death

of her husband, she was driven out of her matrimonial

home. Her in-laws and other nephews and nieces tried to

usurp the entire amount. Hence, this application has been

filed to seeking direction to release the deposit amount

held by her husband.

3. It is the contention of the first respondent that the

second respondent is the nominee, has objected for

release of the amount. They have filed an interpleader

suit before the City Civil Court for decision.

………

17. As far as Section 45ZA of the Banking Regulation

Act is concerned, the above section indicate that the

amount shall be paid to the nomince. It is also to be noted

17

that Section 45ZD makes it clear that when there is an

Order or a certificate or other authority from a Court

obtained relating to such article is produced before the

bank, the bank shall take due note of such decree, Order,

certificate or other authority. Therefore, it cannot be said

that even after the succession certificate is granted by the

competent Court is produced before the bank, they

cannot ignore the same merely on the basis of Section

45ZA of the Banking Regulations Act. Even though 45ZA

contained non obstante clause, the Apex Court in Vishin

N. Khanchandani Vs. Vidya Lachamandas Khanchandani

reported in 2000 (6) SCC 724 in para 11 has categorically

held that though the overriding effect of non obstante

clause to attract the applicability of the phrase, the whole

of the section, the scheme of the Act and the objects and

reasons for which such an enactment is made have to

kept in mind, as the nominee has to be treated as a

trustee and he is entitled to receive the amount only and

he has to pay the amount to the persons who are entitled

under law of succession. Therefore, when the succession

certificate already granted, the object of the Indian

Succession Act has to be given importance. Accordingly,

the contention that only the nominee alone as per section

45ZA of the Banking Regulations Act is entitled to receive

the money even after succession certificate is granted,

cannot be countenanced Therefore, merely because a

suit has been filed at a later point of time at the instance

of the nominee, despite the succession certificate has

18

been produced, the same has no relevance to decide this

application. If at all the second respondent in the event of

succeeding in the suit in O.S. No. 5683 of 2019, to realise

the amount, this Court is of the view that some security

has to be offered by the applicant herein. The learned

counsel for the applicant Mr. Mohan submitted that in

C.S. No. 899 of 2017 already 1/4th share of the applicant

has been declared and preliminary decree is already

passed and charge may be created in respect of the

above 1/4th share of the applicant towards the deposit

amount till the interpleader suit is decided.”

14. In view of the reasons stated above and in view of the ratio

laid down by this Court as well as High Court of Madras, the

petitioner herein is entitled to receive the amounts lying in deceased

bank accounts, by way of fixed deposits being a successor of the

deceased.

15. Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed directing the

respondent No.1/Bank to release the entire deposited amounts of

deceased along with interest accrued thereon in favour of the

petitioner herein within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of

receipt of copy of the order. It is further directed that there shall be a

apportionment out of the disbursed amounts between all the class-I

legal heirs as per Succession Certificate. Further all the legal heirs

19

including two (02) minor children are entitled 1/3

rd

each out of total

amount. As far as two (02) minors are concerned, the petitioner

shall deposit 1/3

rd

share of disbursed amount each in their

respective bank accounts till they attain majority. Further, the

petitioner being a natural guardian entitled to withdraw the

deposited amounts, for the purpose of emergency necessities in

respect of her two (02) minor children. There shall be no order as to

costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall

stand closed.

________________________________

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA , J

03.09.2024

PSA

20

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

WRIT PETITION No.5967 of 2024

03.09.2024

Note: LR copy to be marked.

B/o.

PSA