Madras High Court
WP(MD)/30347/2026 of Vimala Vs The Branch Manager on 26 October 2026
WP(MD) No. 30347 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.DILIP KUMAR
WP(MD) No. 30347 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011516902026}
AND
1. Vimala
32/33, PSG TAM Flats
North Mada Street
Saidapet
Chennai - 600 015
2. Akshaya
32/33, PSG TAM Flats
North Mada Street
Saidapet
Chennai - 600 015.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Branch Manager,
Tamil Nadu Grama Bank
Vallioor Branch
Tirunelveli District
2. Ajay Subramaniyan
32, PSG TAM Flats
North Mada Street
Saidapet
Chennai - 600 015
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent bank to seize the amount of Rs.1,62,00,000/- from the account
WP(MD) No. 30347 of 2026
of the 2nd respondent and to release equal share in the said amount to the petitioners and the 2nd respondent.
For Petitioner(s):
M/s M.Muthumalan
For Respondent(s):
Mr.Y.Jagadeesh – for R1
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed asking for a mandamus to be issued to the first respondent, namely Tamil Nadu Grama Bank to seize a sum of Rs.1,62,00,000/- available in the account of the second respondent and to ensure an equal release of share to the writ petitioners and the second respondent.
2. Heard Mr. Muthumalan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and Mr. Y.Jagadeesh, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. In the light of the order to be passed, which will not cause serious prejudice of the second respondent, notice to the second respondent is hereby dispensed with.
3. Mr. Muthumalan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would state that, she is the widow of Mr. Raju Subramanian @ Raju, who served in the District Judiciary and retired as a Senior Civil Judge. Her husband died intestate on 27.01.2026, leaving behind the first petitioner/ widow, the second petitioner / daughter and the second respondent/ son as his legal heirs. The property of the deceased includes a sum of
WP(MD) No. 30347 of 2026 Rs.1,62,00,000/- that was maintained by the deceased in his bank account with the first respondent. Contending that the deceased had nominated the second respondent as his nominee in the records of the first respondent bank, he would state that the Bank released the said amount to the second respondent and the second respondent, fortunately, had not withdrawn the money but had converted the same into a Term Deposit with the second respondent Bank. He would pray that mere nomination would not amount to entitlement in favour of the second respondent and the second respondent is bound to share the said amount of Rs 1,62,00,000/- with the writ petitioners on an equal proportion. He would accordingly pray for appropriate orders.
4. Per contra Mr. Y.Jagadeesh, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent Bank would submit that the responsibility of the Bank is very much over by acting on the basis of the nomination available in the Account maintained by the deceased. In the light of Section 45ZA of The Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the responsibility of the Bank is very much over and if at all there is any claim to be made by the writ petitioners against the second respondent, the remedy is to go only before the competent Court of Civil Law.
5. In reply, the learned counsel of appearing for the petitioner would submit that he is ready and willing to go before the Competent
WP(MD) No. 30347 of 2026 Court of Civil Law. However, before they go to the Court of Civil Law, the second respondent may withdraw the amount and appropriate the same to himself. In this regard he places reliance upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Chander Talwar & Anr v. Devender Kumar Talwar & Ors reported in (2010) 10 SCC 671 and would pray that mere nomination would not amount to entitlement and he would move the competent court of Civil Law within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of the order and in the meanwhile, the second respondent may not be permitted to release the said amount.
6. Considering the limited relief sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Writ Petition stands disposed of, on the following terms:
i) the action of the first respondent Bank in acting upon the nomination and releasing the amount to the nominee, namely, the second respondent, cannot be faulted with. The mere availability of nomination with the second respondent would not mean that he alone is entitled to the entire amount and it will be subjected to either a testimonial succession or in its absence, by way of inheritance as provided under the law and the same has to be adjudicated only before the competent Court of civil law.
ii) Accordingly, the first respondent Bank is hereby directed to
WP(MD) No. 30347 of 2026 forebear the second respondent from withdrawing the said amount of Rs.1,62,00,000/- along with any other interest accrued upon such sum for a limited period of two weeks from the date of uploading of a copy of this order and meanwhile, the writ petitioners are at liberty to approach the competent Court of Civil Law and obtain appropriate orders protecting their interest.
7. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 26-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No pnn To The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu Grama Bank Vallioor Branch Tirunelveli District
WP(MD) No. 30347 of 2026 N.DILIP KUMAR, J. pnn WP(MD) No. 30347 of 2026 AND
26-10-2026