The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proper proof of claims in a suit, emphasizing the need for evidence to support the plaintiff's entitlement.

JUDGMENT :

This is a suit for declaration and injunction whereby the plaintiff has prayed for declaration that he is entitled to receive 1/6th share of the amounts deposited by Dr. Uma Nanda Chandra since deceased in the Chowringhee Branch, Middleton Row Branch and Calcutta Main Branch of the said State Bank of India morefully shown in the statement of account of the defendant no. 1 being annexure to the plaint. The plaintiff has further claimed a decree for a sum of Rs. 19,12085.16/- against the defendant no. 1 as claimed in paragraph 36 of the plaint alternatively for a decree for sum of Rs. 3,21,034/- against the defendant no. 3 and Rs. 15,91,850/- against the defendant no. 4 as claimed in paragraphs 31 and 34 of the plaint and further prayed for direction on the defendant no. 1 to pay to the plaintiff 1/6th of the amounts in the Fixed Deposit account and Savings Bank account standing in the name of Uma Nanda Chandra since deceased in the Calcutta Main Branch, Middleton Row Branch of the defendant no. 1 and for inquiry into the sum due and payable by the defendant nos. 1 to 6 and for such sum as may be due upon such inquiry with consequential reliefs together with interests on the amount under deposit.

2. Plaintiff's case in brief is that Dinanath Chandra was the father of the plaintiff who died leaving behind his five sons and two daughters. The plaintiff is the youngest son of late Dinanath Chandra and Dr. Uma Nanda Chandra was his third son.

3. Specific case of the plaintiff is that in the year 1958 one of his brother Dr. Uma Nanda Chandra left for Germany where he stayed at I.M. Falken Horst, 8/24, in 5000, Cologne 90 in Germany till he died on March 2, 1996, who had attained the German citizenship from Indian origin and he died bachelor.

4. Defendant no. 5 is the son of the defendant no. 4 and a nephew of the plaintiff. Said Uma Nanda used to visit Calcutta from Germany and stayed with the plaintiff and the family members at the local address in Calcutta who was extremely fond of the plaintiff and he wanted to settle his affairs in India and had a desire to partition the ancestral properties. He had expressed his dissatisfaction to the plaintiff about the behaviour and conduct of his eldest brother defendant no. 2 herein as he refused toamicably partition the ancestral properties. So said Uma Nanda urged the plaintiff to join him to institute a suit for partition against rest of the brothers and partition suit being Title Suit No. 1 of 1982 was instituted in the Alipore Court against other defendant brothers and sisters. The said suit was settled amongst themselves mutually and on 21st February, 1997 the terms of settlement was filed and a decree was passed thereupon.

5. It is further contended that said Uma Nanda had informed the plaintiff that he was made his nominee in some of his Fixed Deposit accounts with State Bank of India, Middleton Row Branch, Calcutta and on maturity of the said Fixed Deposit accounts the plaintiff shall receive the full matured amounts of the said Fixed Deposit accounts. The said Uma Nanda exchanged several correspondence with the plaintiff from Germany. So the plaintiff had belief that he is the nominee in the Fixed Deposit account nos. I027312, II027282, III027308 respectively in State Bank of India, Middleton Row Branch, Calcutta situated at 10, Middleton Row, Calcutta.

6. Further, the plaintiff was informed by said Uma Nanda that he had also made Fixed Deposit accounts in Calcutta Main Branch and Chowringhee Branch of the State Bank of India and upon his death the proceeds of such Fixed Deposit accounts in various Branches of the State Bank of India should be distributed amongst the successors in India.

7. It is submitted that after the death of said Uma Nanda in Germany, the plaintiff wrote to the Middleton Row Branch as also to other Branches of State Bank of India through his advocate informing the death of the said Uma Nanda and for distribution of the proceeds amongst his heirs but the de