Ramachandran, J.

An Original Petition had been filed, under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ottapalam, by four persons, who are brothers and sisters of Sri.A.Narayanankutty. That gentleman had expired on 07-08-1997 while at Sanjeevani Hospital, Kulappully. Sri. Narayankutty was unmarried and his parents had pre-deceased him. Petitioners claimed that they were the only legal heirs of the deceased person, and required the certificates for claiming assets locked in by way of securities in Banking Institutions at Ottapalam.

2. Assets described were (1) a Fixed Deposit for Rs.one lakh in the State Bank of India, Ottapalam, (2) a Fixed Deposit for Rs.80,000/- in the Nedungadi Bank, Ottapalam and (3) funds remaining in Savings Bank Account [S.B.A/c.No.3403] in the same Bank. In respect of the Fixed [MFA No.1250 of 2000] Deposit Account with the State Bank of India, Narayanankutty had presented Ext.B2 nomination, wherein the name of the nominee had been shown as Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. Likewise, in respect of the accounts in the Nedungadi Bank, he had addressed a letter (Ext.B1) dated 04-07-1996 to the Manager of the Bank, requesting that in the event of his death, he desired that the proceeds are to be transferred to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund, Trivandrum, Kerala State.

3. Sri. Narayanankutty had died intestate. The submission made before the Court was that the nominations, if any, were not valid or legally enforceable and the legal heirs alone are entitled to the estate and not the nominees. Further contention raised was that the right of the nominees necessarily was confined to a duty of accepting the amounts, in due course, for distributing it as among the legal heirs. A certificate would have therefore avoided a circuitous course.

4. The Government of India and the State Government were made parties to the proceedings for obvious reasons. The two banking institutions also were impleaded as respondents. Documentary and oral evidence had come as adduced by the parties. The court below held that the nomination in respect of the amounts in deposit with the State Bank of India could not be considered as valid, since it did not conform to the prescriptions of Section 45ZA of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949. It should have been in the name of a person. Since it was not so earmarked, it continued to be an asset of Narayanankutty, who had died intestate. According to the Court, the claim therefore required to be allowed. Petitioners were declared as entitled to receive the amounts together with interest accrued thereon.

5. However, in respect of the amounts in deposit with the Nedungadi Bank, the Court below was of the view that Ext.B1 letter dated 04-07-1996 in definite terms divulged the desire of the deceased person to donate the amount of the Fixed Deposit as well as the outstanding balance in the Savings Bank Account to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. Even though the letter was not in the prescribed form, as specified under the Banking Companies (Nomination) Rules, 1985, the recitals in the letter addressed to the Bank Manager adequately revealed that the depositor desired to donate the entire amounts to the Relief Fund after his death. Consequently, it would not have been possible to issue a Succession Certificate in respect of such assets to the petitioners/appellants.

6. The appellants had challenged that part of the order, adverse to them. There is no appeal filed by the respondents. In respect of the amount that is lying with the State Bank of India, therefore the directions in the judgment have attained finality. It may not, therefore, be necessary to interfere with that part of the finding, although left to ourselves, we would have had reservations about the wisdom of the order.

7. Of course, as observed by the court below, while interpreting the nominee's interest, the Supreme Court had held, in Sarbati Devi v. Usha Devi [AIR 1984 SC 346], that amou