The nominee's right to funds does not negate the natural heir's claim, pending valid proof of the Will in probate proceedings, affirming the need for due process in inheritance rights.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.02.2013 passed in R.A.Nos.3/2010 and 4/2010 by the learned District Judge, Madikeri, and the judgment and decree dated 08.12.2009 passed in O.S.No.5/1998 by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Madikeri.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the Trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff, and the respondents were the defendants.

3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

4. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for recovery of the money. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and the deceased Kalappa are brothers.

Kalappa died on 14.08.1991, and his wife, Smt. Boji Kalappa passed away on 14.05.1995. Defendant No.2 is the brother of Smt. Boji Kalappa. Smt. Boji Kalappa had deposited a certain amount in defendant No.1-Bank. She had shown defendant No.2 as her nominee. After her demise, defendant No.1-Bank disbursed the said amount in favour of defendant No.2, as he was a nominee. It is contended that the plaintiff, being the natural heir of Smt. Boji Kalappa, succeeded to her estate and though he submitted a representation to defendant No.1, not to disburse the amount in favour of anybody, defendant No.1, despite submitting a representation, disbursed the amount in favour of defendant No.2. Hence, the plaintiff requested defendant No.2 to pay the amount, but defendant No.2 refused to pay the amount. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for recovery of the money. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit of the plaintiff.

5. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement contending that Smt. Boji Kalappa had deposited a certain amount in defendant No.1-Bank, and defendant No.2 is shown as her nominee. After the demise of Smt. Boji Kalappa, the amount with accrued interest was disbursed in favour of defendant No.2, and it is contended that there was a valid payment, it is contended that defendant No.1 is unnecessarily arrayed as a party in the suit. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit against defendant No.1.

6. Defendant No.2 filed a written statement contending that the amount deposited by Smt. Boji Kalappa in the Bank was her personal money and he is entitled to it not only as a nominee, but also by succession as Smt. Boji Kalappa had executed a Will dated 03.05.1995. Hence, on these grounds prays to dismiss the suit against defendant No.2.

8. The Trial Court, based on the above said pleadings, re-framed the following issues:

1. “Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the only heir and entitled to all the properties and assets left behind by Mrs. Boji Kalappa including fixed deposits with defendant No.1?

2. Whether defendant No.2 proves that late Smt. Boji Kalappa has appointed him as nominee and he is entitled to receive the suit property?

3. Whether defendant No.2 proves that, late Mrs. Boji Kalappa executed a ‘Will’ dated 3.5.1995, in his favour bequeathing all her assets and interests in his favour?

4. To what order or Decree?”

8. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1, and marked 25 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-25. Conversely, defendant No.2 was examined as DW-5, the officials of defendant No.1 were examined as DW-1 to DW-3, also examined one witness as DW-4, and marked 15 documents as Exs.D-1 to D-15. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing on both the sides, and on assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issues No.1 in the Affirmative, issues No.2 and 3 in the Negative and issue No.4 as per the final order. The Trial Court decreed the sui