Judgment:
ORDER
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.
1. This is an Appeal against Order dated 30th March, 1998, passed in Inventory Proceedings No. 47/86/A by Comarca Judge of Salcete at Quepem. By the impugned order it has been ordered that the amount of Rs. 2,11,600/- deposited under Receipt No. 05396-78-85 with the Corporation Bank at Sirvai, Amona Branch, Quepem along with accrued interest should be given to the legatee of the deceased Maria Emeretiana, Mr. Piedade Moses Valeriano Dias as per the Will made by the said Maria Emeretiana Dias Barreto. This order is sought to be challenged mainly on the ground that the said amount was in the Fixed Deposit with the said Bank jointly in the name of the deceased husband of the appellant by name Valesio Furtado and sister of the appellant by name Maria Emeretiana, but the said amount was exclusively belonging to the deceased husband of the appellant and there was no disposition of the said amount by and during the lifetime of Valesio Furtado and therefore it forms part of the estate left behind by the deceased husband of the appellant.
2. The facts in brief relevant for the decision are that the appellant instituted inventory proceedings on the death of her husband Valesio Furtado, being Inventory Proceedings No. 47/86. Amongst various other items, an amount of Rs. 2,11,600/- lying in the fixed deposit with Corporation Bank of Sirvoi, Quepem in the name of deceased husband of the appellant and the said Maria Emeretiana was also listed as one of the items of the estate left behind by the deceased husband of the appellant. The said Maria Emeretiana by her application sought to raise objection for inclusion of the said amount as the item in the estate of the late husband of the appellant and prayed for deletion of the said item from the inventory proceedings. While the said application was pending for hearing, the said Maria Emeretiana also expired. Moreover, the said Maria Emeretiana had executed a Will dated 19-6-1995 whereby she had appointed one Piedade Moses Valeriano Dias, the respondent herein, as her legatee in relation to the said amount lying in the fixed deposit in the Corporation Bank. The Comarca Judge by the impugned order while allowing the said application of Maria Emeretiana directed that the said amount of Rs. 2,11,600/- along with accrued interest be paid to the legatee of the said Maria Emeretiana, namely, the respondent herein.
3. Shri J.E. Coelho Pereira, the Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant, submitted that there is no dispute that the amount of Rs. 2,11,600/-was belonging to the deceased Valesio having been earned by him during his lifetime and no part of the said amount was ever earned by the said Maria Emeretiana. The learned Advocate submitted that once it is not disputed that the said amount was personally belonging to the said Valesio having been earned by him during his lifetime and there being no dispute in whatsoever manner in respect of the ownership of the said amount, the same forms part of the estate of the deceased Valesio. Being so, it was not permissible for the Comarca Judge to order disbursement of the said amount in favour of the legatee of Maria Emeretiana or even, for that matter, any of the heirs of Maria Emeretiana. He placed reliance on the Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Krushanadas Nagindas Bhate v. Bhagwandas Ranchhoddas and others, reported in : AIR1976Bom153 , in support of his submissions.
4. Perusal of records disclose that an amount of Rs. 2,11,600/- was deposited in the Fixed Deposit with the Corporation Bank during the lifetime of deceased Valesio. Upon the enquiry held in the said inventory proceedings it has been clearly held by the Comarca Judge that the said amount belonged to the deceased Valesio having been earned by him during his life time. There is nothing on record to show that the deceased Maria Emeretiana had, in any manner, any right or interest of whatsoever nature to the said amount or to any part thereof.
5. In Krushanadas Nagindas Bhate v. Bhagwandas Ranchoddas and others(supra), this Court has clearly held thus:-
'In view of this position in law, it cannot be said that what was conceded before the Privy Council was inconsistent with law. We are of the opinion that it will ordinarily depend on the facts and circumstances of the case relating to the opening of the account showing the intention of the parties. If from the facts and circumstances of the case it could be held that the intention was to make the survivor the owner of the amount lying in the account, then he, and not the heirs, would be entitled to recover the amount. If the facts and circumstances of the case do not establish any such intention, although the holder of the joint account may be authorised to withdraw the amount, he would be bound to restore that amount to the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased joint holder. The bank may be discharged by payment to the survivor. But the survivor may, in the absence of an intention to make him the owner, be accountable to the heirs of the deceased joint holder.'
6. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the above decision, it is clear that when a person deposits an amount with the Bank in joint name of himself and of some other person then, such deposit by itself does not create any right or interest in the amount so deposited in case the death of the real depositor of the amount during the subsistence of the period for which the amount remains deposited with the Bank. In case of death of such depositor, the person who survives can certainly collect the amount so deposited on its maturity, but as far as the right to the said amount is concerned, the person collecting the said deposit will be answerable to the claim or claims fay the heirs of the deceased depositor, in case such claim is put forth by his or her heir or heirs. For example if A deposits his own money with a Bank a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for a period of one year commencing from 1st April, 1999, jointly in the names of A and B as being repayable to either or survivor, and A expires on 1st November, 1999, then on maturity period of one year, i.e. on 31st March, 2000, B can certainly collect the money deposited with the Bank in the joint names of A and B. However, if thereafter or even prior to that it is found that A was survived by his son C and he succeeds in establishing in accordance with the provisions of law his claim as lawful heir and successor of A and being so to be entitled for the said amount, then B would be liable to pay the said amount to C.
7. In the case in hand, it is undisputed fact that in the said inventory proceedings instituted on the death of Valesio Furtado, the said Fixed Deposit lying in the name of the said Valesio and of Maria Emeretiana was listed as one of the items of the estate of Valesio. It is also a matter of record that Maria Emeretiana had no right or interest in or to the said amount or any part thereof. Considering the factual aspect of the case and applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Krushanadas Nagindas Bhate (supra), the impugned order cannot be sustained as the legatee of Maria Emeretiana has not been able to establish any independent right to the said amount apart from claiming it through Maria Emeretiana. As already seen above, Maria Emeretiana had no independent right to the said amount nor the terms of deposit disclose the intention of deceased husband of the appellant that the amount was gifted to Maria Emertiana and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
8. In the result, the Appeal succeeds. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The amount of Rs. 2,11,600/- deposited under Receipt No. 05396-78-85 in the Corporation Bank at Sirvoi, Quepem, shall continue to be forming part of the estate of the deceased Valesio Furtado and shall be subjected to final adjudication in the said inventory proceedings. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
9. Appeal allowed.