JUDGMENT

(Prayer:Original Side Appeal filed under Order 36, Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules read with clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order and decreetal order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the learned Judge in Application No.4664 of 2021 in C.S.No.362 of 2021.)

R. Mahadevan, J.,

1. This Original Side Appeal has been filed as against the order passed by the learned Judge in Application No.4664 of 2021 in C.S.No.362 of 2021, on 30.09.2022.

2. The facts which are necessary for disposal of this Original Side Appeal are as follows:

2.1. The first appellant herein is the daughter and the respondents 1 to 3 herein are the sons of late P.M.Maruthai Chettiar, who passed away on 07.10.2019. The appellants 2 and 3 are the sons of the first appellant and the respondents 4 to 7 are the surviving legal heirs of the predeceased daughter by name Jeevarathinam of the said Maruthai Chettiar.

2.2. The aforesaid Maruthai Chettiar, had some fixed deposits with the respondent Banks to the tune of Rs.4,27,83,583/-, for which the appellants 1 to 3 were appointed as nominees. Upon the death of Maruthai Chettiar, the nominees approached the banks for withdrawing the monies. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents 1 to 3 herein filed a suit for injunction before the City Civil Court at Chennai in O.S.No.7775 of 2019, in which, an order of status quo was granted on 25.10.2019, restraining the banks from releasing the deposit amounts and subsequently, the said interim order was vacated. Thereafter, the amounts were withdrawn by the nominees and the same have not been distributed to the other legal heirs. In the light of the withdrawals made by the appellants herein, the suit has become infructuous and hence, the same was withdrawn by the respondents 1 to 3 on 23.06.2022. Subsequently, the suit in C.S.No.362 of 2021 has been filed by the respondents 1 to 3 seeking partition of the fixed deposits and other reliefs. In the suit, OA.No.807 of 2021 and A.Nos.4663 and 4664 of 2021 have also been filed for grant of interim injunction and for directions directing the respondents therein to furnish all the details of deposits, fixed deposits, etc, and deposit 3/5th (1/5th for each of the legal heirs) of the monies already withdrawn by the appellants from the deposits of late Maruthai Chettiar into this court.

2.3. It was argued on behalf of the respondents herein before the learned Judge that the appellants 1 to 3 herein were appointed only as nominees of the said deposits and except as nominees, they have no right over the deposits. They would receive the deposits only as nominees in trust on behalf of themselves and on behalf of other legal heirs and hence, they cannot become absolute owners of the monies lying in the fixed deposits. It was further submitted that the appellants 1 to 3, who are acting as merely trustees, have a fiduciary duty to distribute the monies equally amongst all the Class-1 legal heirs.

2.4. It was argued on behalf of the appellants herein that they were nominated as nominees in respect of deposits made by late Maruthai Chettiar and by virtue of such nomination, they became the absolute owners of the properties. The nomination was made only with an intention to transfer the entire assets after the demise of the original depositor in favour of the appellants, as enough properties have already been given to the respondents 1 to 3. Further, it was contended that as the appellants are the absolute owners of the movable property, filing of the present suit for partition is not maintainable and that, the respondents 1 to 3 could have filed a suit for declaration and sought for entitlement in respect of the fixed deposits, amongst other contentions.

2.5. Considering the arguments advanced on either side, the learned Judge relied upon Section 45-ZA(2) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and also the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and held that nominati