Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon , J.: (Oral) - Owing to absence of customer friendly attitude of the petitioner-Bank, which has rather been antagonist and dictatorial to the respondent-depositor and thus beneficiary of succession certificate (Ex.P2) has again been dragged in this unsavoury litigation in this revision petition by the petitioner-Bank. The matter is very short and insignificant for the petitioner-Bank but the respondent-decree holder is continuously being dragged in the courts by the Bank since long.

2. It may be mentioned here itself that the petitioner had to face many rounds of litigation because of obsessively obstinate as also rough and tough attitude continuously and consistently manifested by the Bank, for him.

3. In short, Smt. Shamsher Kaur wife of Harbhajan Singh @ Bhajan Singh of Patiala had three fix deposit accounts as also one savings Bank account with the petitioner-Bank. The petitioner claiming himself to be a legal heir of depositor Smt. Shamsher Kaur, initially had filed a suit for declaration against the Bank claiming himself to be entitled to the proceeds of the FDRs and savings Bank accounts after the death of depositor Smt. Shamsher Kaur. The suit was dismissed since suitor Sukhwinder Singh had not been named in the nomination column by the depositor and thus the Bank had shown its inability to release the payment in his favour.

4. Against the order of dismissal of the suit of , an appeal was preferred by Sukhwinder Singh, now respondent-decree holder, but he had withdrawn the same for taking steps for obtaining succession certificate from a competent forum. Succession certificate subsequently sought by him, was granted to him by the court of competent jurisdiction. The Bank was not satisfied even with grant of succession certificate to Sukhwinder Singh and refused to honour it. It rather paid a paltry sum of Rs.6,276/- in addition to Rs.17,01,039/- towards total amount of 3 FDRs of the depositor. This payment was received on 1.11.2006 by the decree holder under protest.

5. The entire dispute is with regard to quantum of interest payable on the deposits kept in the fixed deposits by the depositor.

6. There is copy of Annexure R-3 of the certificate issued by the Bank as on 5.7.2004, whereby the total amount of 3 FDRs with interest had been calculated by it itself to be Rs.25,05,815/-. Frustrated with the red tapist and unduly tough attitude adopted by the Bank, decree holder Sukhwinder Singh again knocked at the door of the executing court on 18.8.2007 and sought release of the payment granted under the succession certificate in his favour by the court of competent jurisdiction. Vide order dated 28.2.2013, dismissing the objection petition preferred by the Bank against the said execution petition, the Bank has been called upon to make the entire payment in terms of succession certificate (Ex.P2) to the decree holder beneficiary.

7. Main plea of the Bank against the impugned order is that as per RBI instructions, interest more than the interest payable on savings Bank account after the death of the depositor, is not payable. It is also claimed that the decree holder had never disclosed to the Bank that the depositor had died.

8. Repudiating this claim, counsel for the respondent has urged that the Bank having actively participated in the earlier litigation with the decree holder, had the knowledge of death of depositor Smt. Shamsher Kaur and had owned certificate dated 5.7.2004 (Ex.P3) which formed the basis for issuance of succession certificate. Prayer for dismissal of the petition was made by counsel for the respondent-decree holder.

9. Certificate, issuance of which on 5.7.2004 (Ex.P3), is relied upon by the decree holder, has not been denied by the Bank either. It is not a case of suppression of material facts or making of wrong or false disclosure by the beneficiary. The Bank itself had been extending the period of maturity of the FDRs despite the fact of death of the depositor havin