IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
EASWARAN S., J.
Supriya Suresh Kammath W/o G.Suresh Kammath - Appellant
Vs.
R. Jayachandra Kammath S/o Late A.N.Raya Kammath - Respondent
RSA No. 51 of 2023
Decided On : 02-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute concerning bank locker contents. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. conclusion affirming will's importance. (Para 4 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 25) |
| 3. arguments for and against ownership rights. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. judicial considerations on testamentary rights. (Para 7 , 8 , 28) |
| 5. analysis of joint account and will implications. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 21 , 24 , 26 , 27) |
JUDGMENT :
EASWARAN S., J.
Does a surviving account holder of a joint account of a bank locker have the right to take the articles inside the locker by applying the principle of “either or survivor" ignoring the rights of a legatee under a Will?.
2. This appeal by the 1st defendant raises certain intricate questions on the principles of “either or survivor”, which is normally found in a joint account with a bank. In the present case, the dispute is regarding the operation of a locker kept in the 2nd defendant – Canara Bank by late Sreedevi S. Kammath, which contains approximately 180 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The plaintiff claims that, based on a registered Will executed by late Sreedevi S. Kammath, he has an absolute title over it, whereas the 1st defendant/appellant claims that the ornaments were gifted to her by late Sreedevi S. Kammath and that, going by the principles of “either or survivor”, on the death of one of the joint holders of the account, the entire gold ornaments inside the locker will automatically vest in her. In addition to the above, she also claims that the ornaments belong to her as they were gifted by late Sreedevi S. Kammath and thereby setting up an independent title.
3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:
3.1. The plaintiff sued the 1st defendant/appellant when there was a refusal on the part of the 1st defendant to return the entire gold ornaments kept inside the locker with the 2nd defendant - bank. It is an admitted fact that, a locker was opened with the Canara Bank, Banerji Road, Ernakulam Branch, by late Sreedevi S. Kammath and the appellant on 19.04.2013. Late Sreedevi S. Kammath had deposited all the gold ornaments inside the said locker. Before the aforesaid act, late Sreedevi S. Kammath had executed a registered Will bearing No.131/2016 dated 30.01.2009, by which, it is stated that she has bequeathed her entire gold ornaments (Meyyabharanangal) to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, late Sreedevi S. Kammath died on 27.03.2016 and there were attempts by the 1st defendant/appellant to open the bank locker and remove the contents of the locker and hence, necessitated the filing of the suit seeking for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the 1st defendant from opening the joint account and also a consequential mandatory injunction directing the 2nd defendant - Bank to hand over the entire gold ornaments.
3.2. The 1st defendant contested the suit contending that, late Sreedevi S. Kammath had gifted her ornaments to the 1st defendant absolutely and the 1st defendant and her husband felt that those ornaments should be equally distributed among all the relatives and they had shared the thought with late Sreedevi S. Kammath. Thereafter, late Sreedevi S.Kammath had informed the 1st defendant that she had absolutely given the ornaments to the 1st defendant and she wanted the 1st defendant to use the same and it is for the 1st defendant to decide as to what should be done in respect of the gold ornaments. It was further contended that, after the demise of Sreedevi S. Kammath, the elders of the family met and discussed how the assets should be dealt with and the 1st defendant informed at the gathering that a few of the gold ornaments gifted to her by late Sreedevi S. Kammath are kept in the bank locker and though the ornaments absolutely belong to the 1st defendant, she is willing the distribute the same with her relatives. It was further stated that, the plaintiff was also present in the meeting and agreed to the same. As regards the Will, it was submitted that, going


The principle of 'either or survivor' does not apply to bank lockers when a valid Will bequeathing the contents exists, allowing the holder of the Will to claim ownership without needing co-holder co....
Section 218 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 stipulates manner in which administration of estate is to be granted by a court of law, in cases where a person has died intestate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of legal provisions under the Indian Succession Act, particularly regarding the entitlement to succession certificate, letter of....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Res-judicata, Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, and the entitlement of heirs under the Hindu Succession Act in a partition suit.
(1) Banks cannot wash off their hands and claim that they bear no liability towards their customers for operation of locker.(2) Banks as custodians of public property cannot leave customers in lurch ....
Section 370 of the Indian Succession Act does not cover bank lockers within its ambit for the issuance of a succession certificate.
A survivor under an 'either or survivor' deposit scheme is a trustee for other legal heirs unless explicitly granted exclusive rights via a gift deed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.