Back
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :K.R.VYAS, M.S.Shah
UNION OF INDIA - Appellant
Versus
SARALA DHRUVAKUMAR SHUKLA - Respondent
L.P.A. 698 of 2003
Decided On : 07/11/2003
Indian Succession Act, 1952 - Section 106 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 45 - Appeal against judgment and order allowing Special Civil Application Post Office Savings Account Rules - Judge held that appellants were stopped from treating account as a single holder account upon death of husband of first petitioner - A depositor may operate more than one account these rules subject to condition that deposits in all accounts taken together shall not exceed rupees two lakhs and four thousand in single account and rupees four lakhs and eight thousand in joint account - Upper limits are raised to lakhs in single account and lakhs in joint account - If one of depositors of an MIS account dies account will be treated as a single account in name of surviving depositor from date of death of said depositor and when a report to this effect is received in post office - Postmaster will ask surviving depositor to withdraw the excess amount in excess of limit prescribed for a single depositor as this amount will not carry interest from date of death of joint depositor – Held, Appellants are of the view that all that aforesaid below of Rules provides is that when there is a joint account of two depositors and one of them expires ordinary consequence would be that account would become a single depositor account that is it will be deemed to be a single account in name of surviving depositor - Question is whether above note will apply even where heir or nominee of deceased depositor comes forward for getting his or her name substituted for name of deceased depositor in joint account - Rules do not prohibit any succession taking place in accordance with relevant law regarding succession of property upon death of one of depositors - General principle of law that when there are two owners of a property jointly owning property they are presumed to be tenants in common and each has a definite though undivided share in property would apply in case of a joint account monthly income scheme Rules also - A joint tenancy connotes unity of title possession interest and commencement of title in a tenancy in common there may be unity of possession and commencement of title but other two features would be absent - Rule of English law is to presume that a transfer to a plurality of persons creates a joint tenancy with a right of survivorship unless there are words of severance - It is also required to be noted that case of respondent authorities that petitioner had any other MIS account in his name before he became a joint holder with his mother upon death of his father in aforesaid joint monthly income scheme account - Postal Department was rightly stopped from taking view that continuation of joint monthly income scheme account in names of the first petitioner and second petitioner was contrary to aforesaid Rules - Appeal dismissed (Para 5)
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 5. 7. 2001 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing Special Civil Application No. 458 of 2001 challenging the decision of the appellants herein, i. e. Post Master General, Ahmedabad and Sub-Post Master, LG Hospital Road Post Office, Maninagar, Ahmedabad under the provisions of the Post Office Savings Account Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" ). The learned Single Judge held that the appellants were estopped from treating the account as a single holder account upon the death of the husband of the first petitioner.
( 2 ) THE first respondent herein-original first petitioner and her late husband jointly invested Rs. 2,04,000/- in the post office monthly income scheme on 15. 11. 1994. The second respondent herein - original second petitioner was shown as their nominee. When the husband of the first petitioner expired on 27. 7. 1995, an application was made by the first petitioner to substitute the name of the second petitioner vice his father - late husband of the first petitioner, as a joint holder with the first petitioner. Such application came to be granted by the appellants and the name of the second petitioner was shown as a joint holder alongwith the first petitioner. Accordingly, both the petitioners were shown as joint depositors and the investment became joint investment of both the petitioners. Somewhere thereafter in the year 1997, the petitioners further invested a sum of Rs. 2,04,000/- in the said monthly income scheme account, as the upper limit for joint investment under the monthly income scheme was available upto Rs. 4,08,000/ -. The said deposit was also accepted and accordingly the petitioners monthly income scheme amount in their joint names was having a total amount of Rs. 4,08,000/ -. The appellants continued to pay the petitioners monthly interest by crediting the same in their account for a period of three years. When the investment originally made by the first petitioner and her late husband on 15. 11. 1994 was due to mature on 15. 11. 2000, the second appellant through his letter dated 1. 11. 2000 raised an objection that when the husband of the first petitioner expired, the monthly income scheme account became a single holder account of the surviving depositor, i. e. of the first petitioner and, therefore, the joint monthly income scheme account of the first petitioner and her husband became a single holder account and, therefore, second monthly income scheme account No. 375386 was opened in contravention of Rule 4 of the Rules. The second appellant accordingly asked the first petitioner to close the account and obtain the amount lying at her credit. The petitioners objected to the said decision and made a representation. Since the appellants did not accept the said representation, the petitioners moved this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 458 of 2001 which came to be allowed by the judgment under appeal. That is why this Letters Patent Appeal.
( 3 ) WE have heard Mr Bipin I Mehta, learned counsel for the appellants. The learned counsel submits that by virtue of operation of Note 4 below Rule 4, the joint account of the first petitioner and her late husband (opened on 15. 11. 1994) became a single holder account of the first petitioner upon the death of her husband on 27. 7. 1995. It is, therefore, submitted that the appellants were justified in taking the impugned decision to treat the account in question as a single holder account.
( 4 ) RULE 4 of the Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987 reads as under :-"4. Opening of account :- A depositor may operate more than one account under these rules subject to the condition that deposits in all accounts taken together shall not exceed rupees two lakhs and four thousand in single account and rupees four lakhs and eight thousand in joint account. [mof (DEA) Notification No. G. S. R. 390 (3) DATED 29. 4. 1993 effective from 1. 6. 1993]"[by
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
