SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Mad) 1910

R. MAHADEVAN, MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
Rajalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
M. Balasubramanium – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants:R. Thiagarajan, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1 to R3, K. V. Babu, Senior Counsel for M/s. Durga V Bhatt For R6, V. Nicholas, R8, H. Vijayakumar, Advocates. R4, R5, R7, R9 & R10, No appearance.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - Nomination does not confer beneficial interest on nominees and they hold in trust for themselves and other legal heirs; deposits form part of the estate of the deceased depositors (!) (!) - Suit for partition of movable assets is governed by Section 37(2) for joint possession; Section 37(1) applies when excluded from possession; court fee must reflect the plaint’s averments about joint possession (!) (!) (!) (!) - Bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC does not apply when the cause of action in the two suits is different; interim injunction/partition actions can proceed if facts show distinct causes of action, with equity considerations supporting interim relief (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

What is the effect of nomination under Banking Regulation Act, 1949 on beneficial ownership of fixed deposits?

What are the proper court fee provisions (Section 37(1) vs Section 37(2) TN Act) applicable to a suit for partition of movable assets?

What is the applicability of Order II Rule 2 CPC bar to a suit for partition when actions and causes of action are distinct?


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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top