REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1684 OF 2004

RAM CHANDER TALWAR & ANR.         ...APPELLANTS

                VERSUS

DEVENDER KUMAR TALWAR & ORS.        ...RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

Heard  counsel  appearing  for  the  

appellants.   

Appellant no.1, who was the nominee in the  

bank account held by his deceased mother claims  

full rights over the money lying in the account,  

to the exclusion of the respondent who is none  

else than his full brother. The claim is based  

on section 45 ZA of the Banking Regulation Act,  

which according to him, makes the nominee of the  

depositor the sole beneficiary, vested with all  

the rights of sole depositor.

    Mr. Swetank Shantanu, counsel appearing for

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

2

                             (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  

3

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.

4