RFA No.141/2003 Page 1 of 28

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment reserved on: 18.11.2010

Judgment delivered on: 15.03.2011

RFA No.141/2003

STATE BANK OF INDIA

……Appellant

Through: Mr.S.L. Gupta & Mr. Ram Gupta,

Advocates.

Vs.

SMT.VIJAY LAKSHMI THAKRAL

……Respondent

Through: Mr. J.R.Bajaj, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may

be allowed to see the judgment?

Yes

2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported

Yes

in the Digest?

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.

*

1.

By this appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of

Civil procedure, 1908 the appellant seeks to set aside the

judgment and decree dated 11.11.2002 passed by the Court of

2011:DHC:1550

RFA No.141/2003 Page 2 of 28

the ADJ, Delhi whereby the suit for recovery filed by the

respondent was decreed in favour of the respondent and

against the appellant.

2.

Brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the

present appeal are that the respondent is the widow of late

Sh. Satish Chander Thukral who was working as an officer in

the State Bank Of India and had expired on 22.11.84 leaving

behind the respondent widow and his mother as legal heirs.

That after the death of her husband, the respondent vide her

application dated 29.3.85 requested the appellant bank to

release his terminal dues like provident fund and gratuity, etc.

In response, when the Bank asked the respondent to submit

the requisite papers including the succession certificate, she

was unable to do so due to the inter se disputes between the

legal heirs. For this purpose, the respondent had approached

the concerned civil court which granted the succession

certificate on 4.6.97 in favour of the respondent. On

furnishing the same on 6.6.97, the Bank released the terminal

dues of the deceased in October, 1997 but did not pay any

2011:DHC:1550

RFA No.141/2003 Page 3 of 28

interest on the amount for the delayed period. The respondent

consequently filed a suit for recovery of the interest which

vide judgment and decree dated 11.11.2002 was decreed in

favour of the respondent for a sum of Rs.3,76,404 alongwith

costs and pendentalite and future interest @10.5% p.a.

Feeling aggrieved with the same, the appellant has preferred

the present appeal.

3.

Mr. S.L. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that the suit filed by the respondent was clearly

barred by limitation as the time prescribed for filing of the

recovery suit against the bank is three years, the same being

a simple recovery suit. The contention of the counsel for the

appellant was that the ld. Trial Court has wrongly observed

that the succession certificate was a money decree which can

be executed within a period of 12 years. Counsel further

submitted that before the Succession Court the appellant was

not a party and in any case the succession certificate cannot

be enforced as a money decree against the appellant bank,

the same being a decision by the succession court inter se

2011:DHC:1550

RFA No.141/2003 Page 4 of 28

between the legal heirs of the deceased employee of the bank.

Counsel thus stated that the suit for recovery filed by the

respondent was clearly barred by limitation. The other

argument raised by the counsel for the appellant was that the

appellant was not liable to pay the interest on the amount of

gratuity and the provident fund as the appellant had never

shown any reluctance to pay the amount of terminal dues to

the legal heirs of the deceased employee and it was only on

account of the inter se dispute between the legal heirs that

the appellant bank was p