THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.30792 of 2014 Dated : 15.10.2014 Between:
B. Laxmamma @ Gnanamma W/o.Late Chennaiah, Aged 80 yrs, Occu : Household, R/o.H.No.4-8-0140, Allampally (V), Vikarabad (M), Ranga Reddy District.
.. Petitioner And Andhra Bank, Rep., by its Chief Manager, Sultan Bazar, Koti, Hyderabad & another .. Respondents This Court made the following :
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.30792 of 2014 ORDER :
The writ petition is instituted alleging that the respondent-Bank has illegally paid the proceeds pertaining to SBNRE Account No.53438 to the 2nd respondent without the knowledge or consent of the petitioner.
2. Dr.G.A.Yesudas @ Yesudas, opened SBNRE Account No.53438 in the 1st respondent-Bank. He died on 02.03.2003 while living in United Kingdom. By the time of his death an amount of Rs.12 Lakhs was lying in that account. The 2nd respondent claimed as a nominee of Late Yesudas. The 2nd respondent filed O.P.No.2330 of 2005 on the file of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for issuance of Succession Certificate. The said O.P., was dismissed by an order dated 30.01.2008.
3. The petitioner further avers that by a letter dated 19.07.2005 she was informed that there were claims and counter claims and petitioner was advised to produce succession certificate. In view of the said suggestion given by the Bank, the petitioner filed O.P.No.18 of 2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for issuance of Succession Certificate and by order dated 18.02.2014, the O.P., was allowed. When the petitioner approached the 1st respondent-Bank with the Succession certificate to release the proceeds of SBNRE Account No.53438 the petitioner was shocked to know that the amount was already settled in favour of Mrs Sowbhagyam Pushparaj on 03.04.2008. Aggrieved by the said letter, the petitioner issued legal notice on 01.07.2014 and since there is no response, this writ petition is instituted.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the O.P., filed by the 2nd respondent was already dismissed, the Bank ought not to have released the money to the 2nd respondent. After dismissal of the said O.P., the Bank having directed the petitioner to obtain succession certificate in the year 2005 and in compliance therewith as the petitioner was taking steps, the Bank could not have released the money without due notice to the petitioner. It is contended that the 2nd respondent is not the legal heir and she is not entitled to receive the proceeds of SBNRE Account but the petitioner alone is entitled. The entitlement of the petitioner to receive the money is validated by an order in O.P.No.18 of 2012.
5. It is not known what were the reasons for the Bank to release the money to the 2nd respondent. The fact remains that as evident from the letter dated 17.06.2014 the amount was released to the 2nd respondent as early as on 03.04.2008. Admittedly, before 03.04.2008 no succession certificate was obtained by the petitioner, even though the petitioner was informed to obtain succession certificate by letter dated 19.07.2005. The question of entitlement of 2nd respondent to receive the money and the validity of the 1st respondent to pay the money to 2nd respondent cannot be gone into in the writ proceedings and the petitioner has to work out her remedies elsewhere in accordance with law. No statutory infraction by respondent Bank is pointed out in this writ petition. Fact remains Bank has already paid the money. It is a dispute between two private individuals in so far as entitlement to receive proceeds of SBNRE Account No.53438. In exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the interse dispute between two persons cannot be adjudicated. The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court is not meant for declaring private rights.
6. The writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to work out her remedies in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.
7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand dismissed.
P.NAVEEN RAO,J 15th October, 2014 Rds