Legal heirs' rights supersede nominee claims in account access, limited to the specific account type.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 29^th day of January, 2026

1.

The Petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife, and the Petitioner No.2 is the son of Sri. P. Ashokan, who died on 02.01.2024. This Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioners to direct the Respondent No.1/Bank to block five accounts of the said P. Ashokan with the Respondent No.1, to incorporate the names of the Petitioners in the said accounts deleting the name of the Respondent No.2 and to release the Savings and Fixed Deposit accounts of the deceased Sri. P. Ashokan to the Petitioners as they are Class I heirs and legal representatives of the deceased.

2.

The Petitioners had approached this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C) No.3779 of 2024 without impleading the Respondent No.2, and this Court by Ext.R2(d) judgment permitted the Petitioners to file a fresh Writ Petition, leaving all the contentions open. Thereafter, the present Writ Petition is filed.

3.

The Statement filed by the Respondent No.1/Bank in W.P.(C) No.3779 of 2024 is produced as Ext.P7 in this Writ Petition. The said Statement would show that the deceased was having five accounts with the Respondent No.1/Bank. The deceased was having one PPF Account, one Savings Bank Account and three Fixed Deposit Accounts with the Respondent No.1/Bank. In all the Accounts, except in the PPF Account, operation was by either or survivor clause with the Respondent No.2. With respect to the PPF account, the Respondent No.2 is the nominee of the said account.

4.

It is seen from the Ext.R2(b) judgment in Mat. Appeal No.141 of 2009 filed by the deceased P. Ashokan arising from a petition for divorce filed by him that the deceased and the Petitioner No.1 had been residing separately at least from the year 2002. The specific allegation of the Petitioner No.1 was that the deceased was having an extramarital affair with the Respondent No.2. It is submitted across the bar that there is litigation between the Petitioners and the Respondent No.2 with respect to the properties belonging to the deceased. Whatever the dispute between the Petitioners and the Respondent No.2, going by Ext.P7 Statement filed by the Respondent No.1/Bank in the earlier Writ Petition, the Petitioners cannot claim any amount out of the accounts mentioned therein except the PPF account, in which the Respondent No.2 is only a nominee. It is true that the right of the Nominee is only to receive the amount, and he has to distribute it among the legal heirs of the deceased. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2, on instructions from the Respondent No.2, submitted that the Respondent No.2 has no objection to permitting the Petitioners to withdraw the amount lying in the PPF account.

5.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of rejecting the prayers of the Petitioners with respect to the three Fixed Deposit Accounts and one Savings Bank Account mentioned in Ext.P7 and directing the Respondent No.1/Bank to permit the Petitioners to withdraw the amount lying in the PPF Account in equal shares to the Petitioners.

Sd/-

M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM JUDGE ANB APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 6411 OF 2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF SRI.