Myself and my mother having a savings bank account operating as either or survivour.my mother expired after that I did some transaction .as per bank rule mother name deleted my name existed in account .after some time I closed account as having my named on account only .one my brother file a suit against me for their share in civil court and request court for bringing bank records all as a witness on their whole expenses under cpc order11rule14 dhara151cpc and second request for bringing all records on their expenses under cpc order16 rule6 dhara 151cpc . Now my question is now no 1. Whether his request is right under such circumstances. No 2 whether court allow as per cpc order mentioned in his request Is their any high court or supreme court judgement such situation circumstances
In a savings bank account having operation either or survivor whether survivor is right whole amount as on date of death of one account holder if any legal heir claim their share .is there any High court or supreme court judgement under such circumstances
Whether legal heir will succeed in their efforts for filling a suit for claiming their share
1) When a joint account has a survivorship clause, the bank must pay the balance to the survivor upon the death of one of the holders.
2) The survivor receives the funds from the bank as a "trustee" for the legal heirs of the deceased depositor. This means the survivor is legally obligated to distribute the money according to the deceased's will or the applicable succession laws.
3) legal heir can claim his share
1) Supreme Court in Indranarayan v. Roop Narayan (1971): The court held that where a person deposits their money in a joint account with another, there is no presumption that the depositor intended to gift the funds to the other person. To claim exclusive ownership, the survivor must prove a "contrary intention".
2) Bombay High Court in Shantaram Tukaram Kauthankar v. Dattaram Maruti Kauthankar (1993): The court held that the deposit in a joint name with a survivorship clause does not automatically imply a gift of the money to the survivor. The survivor must account for the funds to the other legal heirs.
Court would allow his application
2)your brother can file a civil suit for a declaration that the funds in the joint account are part of the deceased's estate and for his rightful share.
The type of account was either or survivor. However the same does not make you sole heir to the half share of your mother in the said a/c.
In other words the money/investments lying in the said account was belonging to your mother in half share and on her death her half share devolves upon you, your brother and other brother/sister, if any.
Therefore, your mother who filed the suit has sue share in the money and to avoid litigation it is better to make settlement with him by giving his due share.
Order XI Rule 14 — Production of documents.
party (plaintiff or defendant) may ask the Court to order the other side to produce specific documents that are relevant to the case.
The Court has discretion to decide whether such documents are necessary for fair adjudication.
This is part of the discovery process, intended to prevent suppression of material evidence.
Order XVI Rule 6 — Summoning witness to produce document.
Any person may be summoned to produce a document without being summoned to give evidence; and any person summoned merely to produce a document shall be deemed to have complied with the summons if he causes such document to be produced instead of attending personally.”
Key difference between Order XI Rule 14 Order XVI Rule 6
Who produces the document A party to the suit A third party or witness
Court orders production by a party Witness summoned to produce document
Purpose Discovery between parties Production of external documents.
Presence required Not applicable (party bound by order) Not required if only document production is ordered.
However, again it is the discretion of court to allow or not.
Upon the death of one, the survivor is entitled to operate or withdraw the balance without requiring legal formalities like succession certificate.
Banks are protected when they pay the survivor, but such payment does not confer ownership of the money to the survivor.
However under the succession law, after A’s death, A’s share in the account does not automatically become the survivor’s property.
If the money belonged entirely to A, legal heirs of A have a rightful claim to that amount.
If it was jointly owned, the heirs can claim only A’s proportionate share.
The survivor cannot claim the entire money.
The legal heirs have to prove that the deceased had her own money deposited in the joint account by documents and evidence.
Yes survivor will have the right over bank account if there are no Legal heirs
- As per Delhi High Court in the matter of Prabha Bennett & Ors. versus Rohit Sharma & Anr. , the surviving joint account‐holder is authorized to withdraw the amounts from the account.
- However, the legal heirs have right to claim the fund of mothers account if she was the first or major fund contributor.
- It means that if you was first account holder and contributed more fund than mother , then the other legal heirs having no right over the fund after the demise of mother.
Dear Client, the plaintiff (your brother) is entitled to seek bank records and to request the bank’s attendance as a witness — courts regularly compel production of banking documents and summon bank officials under the CPC’s procedural provisions (Order XI/Order XVI and court’s inherent powers under Section 151) when those records are relevant to the issues in dispute. Whether the court will allow the request depends on relevance and necessity: since the account operated as “either-or/survivor”, transactions you made after your mother’s death are prima facie valid for the survivor, but they are open to challenge by other heirs who must plead and prove wrongful conversion or lack of entitlement. The bank’s internal act of deleting the deceased’s name or closing the account is not conclusive; the court will examine the account opening form, nomination, death certificate, transaction statements, closure receipts, and any succession/administration documents. Practically, the request is legally maintainable and likely to be allowed if the brother shows relevance; you should immediately gather and file certified copies of all bank documents, death certificate, and correspondence, and instruct a lawyer to object/limit disclosure if any documents are privileged or irrelevant. I hope this answer helps. For any more queries, do not hesitate to contact us.
1. Yes, your brother’s request under Order 11 Rule 14 (discovery and production of documents) and Order 16 Rule 6 (summoning of documents) read with Section 151 CPC is procedurally maintainable.
The court has discretion to call for relevant bank records if they are necessary to determine the ownership or share of funds in dispute.
2. The court may allow it if satisfied that the bank records are relevant to deciding the rightful ownership of the amount. However, production of records does not automatically prove his ownership claim - it only provides factual evidence of transactions.
3.
In law, the survivor (you) can operate and withdraw funds after the co-holder’s death, but the ownership of funds depends on who actually contributed the money.
If the deceased (mother) was the main contributor, the survivor holds her portion in trust for her legal heirs.
No - the survivor is not the absolute owner of the entire amount in an either-or-survivor savings account. The survivor can withdraw the amount from the bank for convenience, but the ownership of the money depends on who actually contributed the funds. The deceased’s share remains part of their estate, to be distributed among legal heirs under succession laws.
Sarbati Devi v. Usha Devi (1984) 1 SCC 424 – The Supreme Court held that a nomination or survivor clause does not override succession law; the legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to the money.
Ram Chander Talwar v. Devender Kumar Talwar (2010) 10 SCC 671 – The survivor has the right to operate the account and withdraw money, but only as a trustee for all heirs; not as sole owner.
Shakti Yezdani v. Jayanand Salgaonkar (2017) 7 SCC 192 – The survivor’s right is limited to receiving the funds; ownership vests in the legal heirs as per personal law.
Yes - the legal heirs can succeed in such a suit if they prove that the money in the either-or-survivor account belonged partly or wholly to the deceased. The survivor clause only allows withdrawal from the bank; it does not confer ownership. Courts have consistently held that after the death of one account holder, the deceased’s share forms part of their estate, which passes to all legal heirs under succession law.
If your mother contributed to the account, your brother can validly claim his share from her portion. The burden of proof will be on him to show your mother’s ownership of funds. Judgments like Sarbati Devi v. Usha Devi (1984) and Ram Chander Talwar v. Devender Kumar Talwar (2010) support this view.
From what you’ve said, the savings account was in the joint names of you and your mother, with the mode of operation being “Either or Survivor.” Under banking rules, in such an account, the surviving holder automatically becomes entitled to operate and withdraw the balance upon the death of the other holder. The bank is fully justified in deleting the deceased’s name and allowing the survivor to continue or close the account.
However, it is important to understand that this banking right of survivorship is different from the ownership of the money in law. The bank’s rule only protects the bank from any further liability — it allows the survivor to take the balance without insisting on succession documents. But, in law, the survivor does not automatically become the owner of the entire balance. The money in the account legally forms part of the deceased’s estate unless it can be shown that it was intended as a gift to the survivor.
So, if your brother has filed a civil suit claiming that the balance belonged to your late mother and should be divided among all her legal heirs, he has a legal right to do so. The bank is not concerned anymore, but the ownership of the funds can be questioned in a civil court.
Regarding his request under Order XI Rule 14 and Order XVI Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC:
– Under Order XI Rule 14, a party can ask the court to direct the other side to produce specific documents relevant to the case.
– Under Order XVI Rule 6, a party can summon witnesses (like bank officials) to produce records without calling them as regular witnesses.
So, his applications are legally permissible. The court may allow them if it finds that the documents or witnesses are relevant for deciding the ownership of the amount.
As for judgments, the Supreme Court and several High Courts have held that in “either or survivor” accounts, the surviving holder gets only the right to receive the money from the bank, but not necessarily ownership of the entire balance. Ownership depends on the intention of the depositor — whether the money was jointly owned, or whether the deceased intended the survivor to be the sole owner.
Therefore, in your case, if you can show that the money was actually contributed by you or that your mother had intended that you alone should get the amount after her death, then you can retain the full amount. Otherwise, if the money belonged to your mother, your brother and other legal heirs can claim their proportionate shares through the civil suit.
To sum up:
Your brother’s request to summon records and witnesses is legally valid.
The court may allow it if it finds those records relevant.
The survivor (you) has the right to receive and operate the account, but ownership of the funds depends on whose money it was and your mother’s intention.
The legal heirs can succeed in claiming their share if they prove that the money belonged to your mother alone and there was no intention to make it your exclusive property.
If you want, I can help you frame a strong written statement to defend this case effectively.
