Ram Chander Talwar & Anr vs Devender Kumar Talwar & Ors

Mr. Swetank Shantanu, counsel appearing for 2 the appellants, strenuously argued that by virtue

of sub-section 2 of section 45 ZA, the nominee of

the depositor, after the death of the depositor

acquires all his/her rights to the express

exclusion of all other persons and, therefore,

the respondent can not lay any claim to the money

in the account or in regard to the articles that

might be lying in the bank locker held by their

deceased mother.

The submission is quite fallacious and is

based on a complete misconception of the

provision of the Act. Sub-section 2 of the 45ZA,

reads as follows:-

45ZA xxx xxx xxx xxx

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any disposition, whether testamentary or otherwise, in respect of such deposit, where a nomination made in the prescribed manner purports to confer on any person the right to receive the amount to deposit from the banking company, the nominee shall, on the death of the sole depositor or, as the case may be, on the death of all the depositors, become entitled to all the rights of the sole depositor or, as the case may be, of the depositors, in relation to such deposit to the exclusion of all other persons, unless the nomination is varied or cancelled in the prescribed manner.

xxx xxx xxx xx 3

(emphasis added)

Section 45ZA(2) merely puts the nominee in

the shoes of the depositor after his death and

clothes him with the exclusive right to receive

the money lying in the account. It gives him all

the rights of the depositor so far as the

depositor's account is concerned. But it by no

stretch of imagination makes the nominee the

owner of the money lying in the account. It

needs to be remembered that the Banking

Regulation Act is enacted to consolidate and

amend the law relating to banking. It is in no

way concerned with the question of succession.

All the monies receivable by the nominee by

virtue of section 45 ZA(2) would, therefore, form

part of the estate of the deceased depositor and

devolve according to the rule of succession to

which the depositor may be governed.

We find that the High Court has rightly

rejected the appellant's claim relying upon the

decision of this Court in V.N. Khanchandani &

Anr. v. V.L. Khanchandani & Anr., (2000) 6 SCC

724. The provision under Section 6(1) of the 4 Government Saving Certificate Act, 1959 is

materially and substantially the same as the

provision of Section 45ZA(2) of the Banking

Regulation Act, 1949, and the decision in V.N.

Khanchandani applies with full force to the

facts of this case.

We find no merit in this appeal. It is,

accordingly, dismissed.

...................J. (AFTAB ALAM)

...................J. (R.M. LODHA)

New Delhi, October 06, 2010.