IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION NO.14643 of 2025 THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 Between:

Khaja Salahuddin …Petitioner AND The Union of India and 5 others …Respondents

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“ … to issue order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus by directing the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 to disclose the details of the entitlements to be paid to the successor of Late Smt. Saba Fatima from the Bank Account No.37831484845 and LIC policy bearing No.609797131 to the petitioner and …..”

2. Heard Sri M. Vijay Kumar Goud, learned counsel representing Smt. P. Subhashree Priyadarshani, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. NVR Rajya Lakshmi, learned counsel attached to the office of Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No.1, Smt. M.K.Sree Ramya, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 and Sri S. Ganesh, learned counsel for respondent No.6.

3. During pendency of the writ petition, respondent Nos.4 and 5 have furnished the details of the amounts in the name of Late Saba Fathima by filing counter with relevant information.

4. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 opposed the writ petition pleading that the deceased Late Saba Fathima has mentioned the name of her father (respondent No.6) as her nominee to the bank account. The controversy is between the petitioner and respondent No.6. Further, respondent Nos.2 and 3 declined to reveal the details of the amounts to the credit of Late Saba Fathima’s account on the ground that as per Section 45ZA of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, when a nomination is made in prescribed manner by mentioning the name of a person, on death of the sole depositor, the nominees are entitled to withdraw the said amounts and no details can be furnished to any third party.

5. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed counter opposing the writ petition stating that as per Section 39(7) of the Insurance Act, 1938, the nominees are entitled to payment of the amounts deposited in case of death of the depositor.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the case of Manoj Kumar Sharma v.

Union of India and another, 2024:AHC:177835-DB, wherein, it is held that money which is received by nominees would be subject to succession law and the heirs of the deceased would have a right to the said amount in accordance with law.

7. Further, reference is made to judgment of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in the case of K.R.Sakthi Murugeswari v. The Divisional Manager and others in W.P.(MD) No.11044 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD).No.8674 of 2021, dated 16.10.2023, wherein, it is held that a nominee may collect sum from the Insurance Company and hold it in trust and it will be subject to the claims made by the legal heirs of the deceased under the personal law governing them. In the instant case, the petitioner being husband and respondent No.6 being father of Late Saba Fathima are claiming to be legal heirs and beneficiaries of the amounts lying in Bank Account No.37831484845 and LIC policy bearing No.609797131.

8. In view of the judgments in the cases of Manoj Kumar Sharma and K.R.Sakthi Murugeswari (supra), this Court is of the opinion that though respondent No.6 is named as nominee to the bank account as well as LIC policy, the petitioner may as a legal heir agitate for his rights in case he is entitled to any amounts under the personal law governing the respective parties. The details of amounts lying to the credit of Account

No.37831484845 are necessary to facilitate the petitioner to seek relief before a civil court.

9. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 stated that respondent No.5 has already disclosed the details of the amounts held in LIC policy bearing No.609797131 of Late Saba Fathima.

10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondent Nos.2 and 3-bank to disclose the amounts lying to the credit of Ac