ORDER :

Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J.

1. This writ petition is heard through Videoconferencing, on account of the COVID-19 pandemic situation.

2. The petitioner has laid challenge to the proceedings of the respondent dated 21.11.2013 in Reference No. Death Claim/11/2013, dated 21.11.2013 and sought for a consequential direction to the respondent to disburse the amount deposited by his brother Muthiah Gopal @ Gopal, which is lying in Term Deposit Account No. 2628404003238 and Savings Bank account No. 2628101000591 to him.

3. The petitioner is the brother of one deceased Muthiah Gopal. The deceased was married to one Mrs. Lakshmi, who pre-deceased him on 07.08.2008. The said Muthiah Gopal was the customer in the respondent Bank having Savings Bank Account bearing No. 2628101000591. He had also deposited a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) as Fixed Deposit on 17.09.2012 in Term Deposit No. 262810102396 for a period of six months with auto renewal option. The brother of the petitioner was admitted in hospital for various ailments, when he was staying with the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have taken care of the deceased till the time of his death. The said Muthiah Gopal died on 28.10.2012. There were no children for the deceased.

4. The petitioner, being the only sole legal heir of the deceased Gopal, applied and obtained Legal Heirship Certificate on 25.05.2013 in Proceedings No. Pa.Mu.A1/617/2013. On the strength of the Legal Heirship Certificate, he approached the respondent Bank requesting them to disburse the amount lying in the Fixed Deposit as well as the Savings Bank Accounts of the deceased Gopal. Despite several requests, the respondent Bank was not willing to release the amount in favour of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 276 of 2015 seeking a mandamus to the respondent Bank to consider the request of the petitioner, which was allowed on 08.01.2015. However, the respondent Bank had claimed that it had sent a response dated 21.11.2013, which according to the petitioner, is an anti-dated one, stating that with respect to the Term Deposit No. KDR 2628404003238, a nomination has been registered in the name of Lala Deep and with respect to the Savings Bank Account, one Smt. Josephine Clement has been registered as nominee by the deceased. The said letter is impugned in this writ petition.

5. The respondent filed a counter-affidavit dated 13.09.2019 claiming that the deceased and his wife opened an account with the respondent Bank on 17.09.1998 showing their address as No. 27, Telephone Colony, 2nd Street, Adambakkam, Chennai-600088, and at the time of opening the account, though there was a provision for nomination, the same was not done by the depositor and only subsequently, when the branch account migrated to Flex Cube Software, the account of the customers were renumbered and in the computerized records, the nomination details have been shown, as per which, Ms. Josephine Clements was shown as the niece of the customer and the address of the nominee was shown as MIG-60, Madhavadhara VODA Colony, Marriyapalam PO, behind REB Office, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. Similarly, in the Fixed Deposit account, one Lala Deep is shown as nominee, who is stated to be the nephew without mentioning his address. It is stated that the deceased Gopal was a retired Customs officer working in Visakhapatnam and Chennai and therefore, the Bank has got no reason to doubt that the deceased had nominated such persons, one of whose address is in Visakhapatnam. The Bank further has stated that the in tune with the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India and policy of the Bank regarding the payment of money standing to the credit of the deceased depositors, where nomination is registered, the same have to be settled only to the nominee, unless and otherwise, a Court order is produced to any other effect and accordingly, since the deceased account holder had already nominated persons for receiving the money in the said