Civil Procedure – Regular First Appeal – Appeal against judgment and decree for realisation of money – Relationship and Marriage – Presumption of Valid Marriage – Whether a nominee can appropriate the amount deposited in a fixed deposit.
(2025) 7 KCD 282 : 2025 KER 55442
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
RFA NO. 59 OF 2014; 28 July, 2025
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J.
Facts of the Case: The plaintiffs (respondents), children of the deceased Mayadevi, filed a suit to recover Rs. 8,00,000/- deposited by Mayadevi in State Bank of Travancore, Aroor branch, where the defendant (appellant), Mayadevi’s brother, was named as the nominee. The defendant admitted the nomination and deposit but denied that the plaintiffs were Mayadevi’s children. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs, which the defendant appealed.
Issues Raised:
Whether the plaintiffs are the children born to the deceased Mayadevi.
Whether a nominee can appropriate the amount deposited in a fixed deposit.
Court’s Findings on Relationship and Marriage:
The Court found that the plaintiffs are indeed the children of Mayadevi and Vijayan (PW3). This was supported by oral testimonies of PW1 (1st plaintiff), PW3 (Vijayan), and PW5 (a neighbour), as well as documentary evidence including birth certificates (Exts. A6, A7), Mayadevi’s election identity card (Ext. A8), a news report of her death (Ext. A9), and SSLC certificates of the plaintiffs (Exts. A10, A11).
Presumption of Valid Marriage: Despite the appellant’s argument that an unregistered marriage deed (Ext. A5) alone does not create a valid marriage and that there was no detailed pleading regarding customary marriage, the Court held that the long cohabitation of Mayadevi and Vijayan for over 15 years as husband and wife creates a strong presumption of a valid marriage. This presumption is rebuttable, but the defendant failed to provide reliable evidence to rebut it. The Court relied on decisions such as Tulsa and Others v. Durghatiya and Others [(2008) 4 SCC 520], Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan and Others v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan and Others [(2022) 16 SCC 71], and Shiramabai W/o Pundalik Bhave & Ors. v. Captain, Record Officer for O.I.C [AIR 2023 SC 3920], which establish that continuous long cohabitation leads to a presumption of valid marriage under Section 114 of the Evidence Act.
Court’s Findings on Nominee’s Rights:
The Court unequivocally held that a nominee is merely a trustee for the legal representatives and cannot appropriate the deposited amount. The nominee’s duty is to collect the amount and disburse it to the legal heirs. The amount forms part of the deceased’s estate and devolves according to the law of succession.
This principle was affirmed by relying on Supreme Court decisions, including Smt. Sarabati Devi and Ors. v. Usha Devi [AIR 1984 SC 346] concerning life insurance policies, Vishin N. Kanchandani and Ors. v. Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani and Ors. [AIR 2000 SC 2747] concerning national savings certificates, Ram Chander Talwar and Ors, v. Devender Kumar Talwar and Ors. [(2010) 10 SCC 671] regarding Section 45ZA of the Banking Regulation Act, and Shakti Yezdani and Ors. v. Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar and Ors [(2024) 4 SCC 642] which reiterated that nomination does not confer absolute title or impact the usual mode of succession.
Conclusion: As the plaintiffs were established to be the legal representatives of Mayadevi, and the defendant was merely a nominee, the trial court was justified in decreeing the suit for the recovery of the money.
Appeal Result: The appeal was dismissed, with no costs ordered due to the close relationship between the parties .
