F.M. Reis, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Vales, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants and Mr. Prasad Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents.

2. Admit, on the following substantial question of law :

"(1) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was justified to hold that the amount standing in the name of the mother of the Appellants and the Respondents could be withdrawn by her successors only after the shares are determined in the Inventory Proceedings ?"

3. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents waives service.

4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the suit filed by the Appellants, inter alia, is for the distribution of the amount lying in the savings account and two Fixed Deposits to the Appellants and the Respondent No. 1 in equal proportion being the children of Smt. Chameli Yadav, who is the mother of the Appellants and the Respondent No. 1, now deceased. It is the case of the Appellants that the amount standing in the name of the deceased mother devolved upon the Appellants and the Respondent No. 1 herein in equal shares and, as such, the Respondent No. 2-Bank be directed to distribute the said amount in terms thereof. It is further their case that the Respondent No. 1 was appointed as a nominee to the said accounts by the deceased mother and that as the Respondent No. 2-Bank was refusing to distribute the said amount, the suit was filed for the distribution of the amounts and, consequential reliefs. The Respondent No. 1 filed written statements admitting that the Appellants and the Respondent No. 1 are the legal heirs of the deceased Chameli Yadav. But, however, it is the contention that the Appellants and the Respondent No. 1 are not entitled equally the amount lying in the subject account. The learned Trial Judge by Judgment and Decree dated 10.03.2015, decreed the suit filed by the Appellants, and inter alia, held that the Appellants and the Respondent No. 1 are equally entitled for the said amount. The learned Judge further directed the Bank to pay equally the amounts outstanding to the credit of the said deceased mother in the subject accounts to the Appellants and the Respondent No. 1. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment, the Respondent No. 1 filed an Appeal before the Lower Appellate Court. The Lower Appellate Court framed two points for determination one being whether the Appellants and the Respondent No. 1 are entitled to receive the amount standing in the name of late Chameli Yadav and whether the Respondent No. 1 proves that he alone is entitled to withdraw the said amount standing in the name of the deceased mother. By Judgment and Decree dated 28.12.2015, the Lower Appellate Court answered the first point for determination in the negative. The Lower Appellate Court whilst discussing the second point for determination has found that the Appellants and the Respondent No. 1 are entitled to the amount standing to the credit of the deceased-Estate Leaver. But, however, the learned Judge held that unless and until Inventory Proceedings were initiated terming the shares of the parties, the question of distributing the amount as claimed by the Appellants is not at all justified. The learned Judge had also found that the Respondent No. 1 is alone not entitled to claim the said amount. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment, the Appellants have preferred the present Appeal.

5. Shri Vales, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, has pointed out that merely because the Respondent No. 1 is a nominee of the subject deposit, he is not entitled to the amount standing to the credit of the deceased Chameli Yadav. Learned Counsel further submits that the amounts standing to the credit of the said deceased devolved upon the Appellants and the Respondent No. 1 equally upon the death of their mother. Learned Counsel further submits that merely because the Respondent No. 1 is a nominee, by no stretch of imagination, can he be entitled to claim the amo