Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 721
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
ANJU AND ANOTHER - Appellant
Vs.
RAMPAL AND ANOTHER - Respondent
Civil Suit (Os) No. 1159 of 2014
Decided On : 11-04-2019
Anil Aggarwal, Adv., Pradeep Diwan, Adv., Ujjwal Jha, Adv., Sangeeta Dhingra, Adv., Jitendra Kumar, Adv., Anjaneya Singh, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of key legal provisions such as the Negotiable Instruments Act, Indian Contract Act, and Banking Regulation Act in determining the maintainability of the suit and the liability of the defendant.
Headnote:
Fraud - Recovery of Funds - Order XXXVII CPC - [Fraud] - [Recovery of Funds] - [Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Banking Regulation Act, 1949] - The court discussed the maintainability of the suit under Order XXXVII, the nature of the transactions, the legal heirs' rights, and the liability of the defendant. Key legal provisions such as the Negotiable Instruments Act, Indian Contract Act, and Banking Regulation Act were interpreted to determine the maintainability of the suit and the liability of the defendant.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiffs sought recovery of funds from the Defendants, alleging fraud and misappropriation of money belonging to the deceased. The Defendants contested the suit, claiming that the transactions were not fraudulent and were made during the deceased's lifetime.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit was maintainable under Order XXXVII and that the Plaintiffs, as legal heirs, had a right to seek recovery. The court also found that the transactions and the liability of the defendant needed to be adjudicated in trial.
Issues: The main issues were the maintainability of the suit, the nature of the transactions, the rights of the legal heirs, and the liability of the defendant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit was maintainable under Order XXXVII and that the legal heirs had a right to seek recovery. The court also emphasized the need for trial to adjudicate the nature of the transactions and the liability of the defendant.
Final Decision: The court granted conditional leave to defend to Defendant No. 1, subject to furnishing security, and allowed unconditional leave to Defendant No. 2 bank. The court directed the bank not to permit withdrawal of any amounts without informing the Plaintiffs.
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
I.A 7531/2014 (Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2), I.A. 15617/2015 (Leave to defend) and I.A. 26045/2015 (Leave to defend)
The Plaintiff No. 1 - Anju Bala is the wife of late Shri. Hari Om Rana. The Plaintiff No. 2 - Kumari Bharti Rana, is her daughter, who is a minor. Defendant No. 1 - Rampal is the father of Late Shri. Hari Om Rana and the father-in-law of Plaintiff No.1 and grandfather of Plaintiff No. 2. Defendant No. 2 is the State Bank of India, Dwarka, New Delhi.
2. The Plaintiffs, Anju Bala and Bharti Rana have filed the present suit seeking recovery of Rs. 4,07,81,344/- against the Defendants under Order XXXVII CPC. The case of the Plaintiffs is that she is the widow of late Shri. Hari Om Rana who was living separately from his father in Palam Vihar, Gurgaon. He was a property dealer. He passed away on 7th October, 2008 and the Plaintiffs did not have any information about his movable and immovable properties. According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants committed various acts of fraud and misappropriated the money belonging to late Shri. Hari Om Rana. It is the allegation in the plaint that all the documents and the details of the bank accounts including the cheque books, passbooks, ATM cards, FDRs etc. pertaining to late Shri. Hari Om Rana have been taken away by her in-laws. She claims that her husband had deposited a sum of Rs.3.5 crores in his bank account which was received by him from the sale proceeds of some lands along with his father, Defendant No. 1 - Rampal. The Plaintiffs approached the State Bank of Patiala Village Bamnoli, Dwarka which is now State Bank of India, which denied the existence of such an account. The Plaintiffs then filed Civil Suit No 139/2011 seeking details of all the bank accounts and fixed deposits maintained by her husband. Upon the same being disclosed by the bank, they have filed the present suit seeking recovery. The submission of the Plaintiffs is that there are various irregularities and unusual transactions which point to the fact that fraud has been committed by the Defendant No. 1 both during the lifetime of late Shri. Hari Om Rana and after his demise. Specific details of the amounts which were revealed as having been paid to Mr. Rampal from the bank account of late Shri. Hari Om Rana vide cheques are as under:
(i) 01/03/07 638762 Rs. 10,00,000/-
(ii) 17/05/07 638764 Rs. 15,00,000/-
(iii) 16/06/07 638768 Rs. 25,00,000/-
(iv) 08/12/07 Transfer Rs. 1,36,35,000/-"
3. The above amount is a total of Rs.1,86,35,000/- which was given to his father - Rampal. The amounts were paid from bank account No. 65015999965 in which there was also a deposit of Rs. 3,44,27,765/-. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that the said bank account was closed down on 24th December, 2007 and on the same day, another savings bank account was opened in the Defendant No.2's bank. It is claimed that out of the abovementioned amounts, some amount was returned by Defendant No. 1 and an amount of Rs. 1,36,35,000/- was outstanding. The Plaintiffs further plead that a FDR for a sum of Rs. 1 crore was created from the bank account of her husband which had finally matured for a sum of Rs. 1,19,61,682/-. It is claimed that after the death of Shri Hari Om Rana, Rampal was shown as a nominee for the said FDR and he encashed the said FDR for a total sum of Rs. 1,12,19,339/-. The Plaintiffs claim recovery of sum of Rs. 1,36,35,000/- and 1,12,19,339/-. Interest is also claimed on the said amounts. Thus, the decree is prayed for a total sum of Rs. 4,07,81,344/-.
4. The present suit was instituted in April, 2014. The Defendants entered appearance in the matter and sought leave to defend. The stand of the bank is as under:
i. That late Shri. Hari Om Rana maintained several accounts and FDRs with the bank.
ii. That his father Rampal was made the nominee in the said accounts by late Shri. Hari Om Rana.
iii. The Plaintiffs had filed two suits being Civil Suit 103/2010 and 139/2011 seeking information about late Shri. Ha
