There is no presumption of advancement in favor of a wife in India when a Hindu husband makes a deposit in the joint names of himself and his wife, payable to either or survivor. In the absence of proof of a contrary intention, there is a resulting trust in favor of the husband.

( 1 ) REDDY, C. J. 1. This appeal is filed by the first defendants in O. S. No. 13 of 1955 on the file of the District Court, Cuddapah against the judgement of Umamaheswaram, J. , under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

( 2 ) THE facts leading up to this litigation are the following. One Dalavayi Ramaswami, who was a Deputy Superintendent of Police, died on 15-7-1954. He left a fixed deposit of Rs. 10,0000/ with the Imperial Bank of India (State Bank Of India) Cuddapah, in the joint names of himself and the appellant, payable on either or the survivor. During his life time, a sum of Rs. 4,000/ was borrowed by the parties on the security of the fixed deposit. The balance payable was only Rs. 6,092-7-0. As this amount was claimed by Ramaswamis brother, his wife, who at the relevant time was living away from him, and the appellant who described herself as another wife of Ramaswami the Imperial Bank of Indian instituted the inter-pleader suit (O. S. No. 13 of 1955) for adjudication of title to the sum of Rs. 6,092-7-0 impleading all the three persons as parties to the suit, namely the appellant as the first defendant, Ramaswamis brother as the second defendant and his wife as the third defendant with regard to whose status there was no dispute.

( 3 ) THE contention of the first defendant appellant was (i) that hiving regard to the term of the deposit, namely, that it is payable to either or survivor, on the death of Ramaswami, she was solely entitled to this amount, and (ii) that, in any event, as one of the wives of Ramaswami, she was entitled to share the amount in question along with the third defendant.

( 4 ) THE second defendant remained ex parte.

( 5 ) THE third defendant pleaded that she was married to Ramaswami on 28-5-1921, that the first defendant, belonging to the Kalavanthula community of Markapur, was not the legally wedded wife of Ramaswami but was only his concubine and that as the sole heir of Ramaswami she was entitled to the deposit as it remainded to be the absolute property of the deceased.

( 6 ) THE trail Court decided both the issues in favour of the third defendant and against the first defendant. Its conclusion on the question of marriage was that the first defendant was only a missing their living together for a number of years having regards to the fact that the connection between them had an illicit orgin. The finding of the District Judge on the point whether the first defendant-appellant could claim this amount for the reason that the fixed deposit stood in the joint names of Ramaswami and the appellant payable to either or survivor was that the amount deposited by Ramaswami belonged to his estate as there was nothing to indicate that he intended to make a gift of this amount to the appellant. In the result, the claim of the third defendant to this amount was recognised.

( 7 ) THE appellant carried the matter in appeal to this Court. Umamaheswaram, J. , who heard the appel, confirmed the decision of the trail Court concurring in its opinion on both the issues.

( 8 ) IN this appeal, we have first to decide whether the asset in question was the absolute property of the deceased or whether his object in making the deposit in the joint names of both was that it should be held for the advancement of the appellant whose name was jointed with his in the fixed deposit receipt.

( 9 ) THE law on the subject of deposits in the joint names of two people (either or survivor) is stated thus in Guran Ditta v. Ram Ditta, ILR 55 Cal 944 : (AIR 1927 PC 172) "the deposit by a Hindu of his money in a bank in the joint names of himself and his wife and on terms that it is payable to either or survivor does not on his death constitute a gift by him to his wife. There is a resulting trust in his favour in the absence of proof of a contrary intention, there being in India no presumption of a intended advancement in favour of a wife. "this passage establishes that the doctrine of advancement is inapplicable in India.

( 10 ) THI

Click Here to Read the rest of this document