Bank account nominee not legal heir: Gujarat high court

In an important verdict, the Gujarat high court has ruled that the nominee to a bank account does not have the rights of a legal heir of the original account holder. Hence, he cannot claim money or deposits lying with the bank on the death of the original account holder.

A bench of justice Akil Kureshi and justice CL Soni gave this verdict recently while hearing a plea in which the petitioner had sought the money lying in the bank account of his late uncle who was a non-resident Indian.

"A nominee is a person who is named to receive a property or benefits on behalf of the persons actually entitled to receive such property or benefit under the law. Such a person is named to act as an agent or trustee on behalf of the persons legally entitled to receive the property of the deceased," the court observed in its order.

"He (petitioner) is just a potential successor to another's right. Such right or benefit may be under a contract or under a law. For example, when a person is appointed as executor in a will, he is nominated by the will to execute and implement the will of the deceased in distributing his properties. Thus, such an executor is a nominee who cannot claim any right to the property," the bench said.

The court further said that in the same way a person nominated to receive any property, either from the bank or from any state authority, will have the right to get the property or any other benefits, on behalf of their rightful claimants.

According to the case details, one Jignesh Dave had filed a suit in the court at Jamnagar seeking an order to the Bank of India to hand over to him 91,000 pound sterling lying with the bank in two different NRI accounts. The two accounts are in the name of Jignesh's uncle, late Dhirajlal Manishankar Dave. The value of 91,000 pound sterling in Indian currency comes to Rs70 lakh.

Jignesh submitted before the court that late Dhirajlal Manishankar Dave, the elder brother of his father, used to live in UK. During the last one year, however, he had lived in India with him and was looked after by him. Jignesh further said that his uncle had nominated him to recover the said amount and had verbally told him to take the money but the bank was not releasing the amount.

When Dave filed a suit in the Jamnagar court for the cash, Dhirajlal's daughter and son-in-law opposed the release of the money to him. They said that they were the rightful heir and, as per the Hindu Succession Act, they are both entitled to the money.

The daughter and her husband submitted legal documents regarding their claim including Probate Certificate. The court had then refused to give Jignesh any relief, after which he had approached the high court.