Summary suit maintainability and nomination in bank deposits: disputed facts can justify security and protect rival claims.

A summary suit under Order XXXVII may proceed where the claim is supported by banking records and concerns identifiable monetary transactions rather than an unascertained demand. Limitation cannot be rejected at the threshold when the plaintiffs plead later disclosure of the transactions and the issue turns on knowledge of the claim. Where the pleadings raise disputed factual questions about the alleged loan, ownership of land-linked payments, and the effect of nomination in bank accounts and FDRs, the court may refuse unconditional leave to defend and protect the claim by requiring security. A nominee may receive the deposit amount for receipt purposes, but nomination alone does not confer ownership.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit was maintainable as a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and whether the claim was a liquidated sum; (ii) whether the suit was barred by limitation; (iii) whether the defendants were entitled to unconditional leave to defend or whether conditional leave with security was required, including the effect of nomination in the bank accounts and FDR.

Issue (i): Whether the suit was maintainable as a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and whether the claim was a liquidated sum.

Analysis: The amounts claimed had been paid through banking channels and were supported by bank statements and related documents. The dispute centred on identifiable monetary transactions and not on an unascertained claim. The Court treated the claim as one capable of being pursued in summary proceedings.

Conclusion: The suit was maintainable under Order XXXVII and the claim was treated as a liquidated sum.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The plaintiffs' case was that the relevant transactions came to light only after disclosure by the bank in 2011. On that basis, the Court held that limitation could not be rejected at the threshold. The question was linked to the plaintiffs' knowledge of the transactions rather than merely the dates of transfer.

Conclusion: The suit was not rejected as barred by limitation.

Issue (iii): Whether the defendants were entitled to unconditional leave to defend or whether conditional leave with security was required, including the effect of nomination in the bank accounts and FDR.

Analysis: The Court found that the nature of the payments, the alleged loan character, and the rival explanation regarding the ownership of the land required trial. The absence of a loan agreement and the presence of disputed factual questions created triable issues. At the same time, the encashment of the FDR by the nominee and the admitted withdrawals from the deceased's account justified protection of the claim. The Court also reiterated that a nominee receives the amount for receipt purposes but does not become the owner of the money, and that such issues do not displace the rights of other claimants.

Conclusion: Defendant No. 1 was granted only conditional leave to defend on furnishing security, while Defendant No. 2 was granted unconditional leave, and the bank was restrained from permitting withdrawal without informing the plaintiffs.

Final Conclusion: The applications were disposed of by preserving the suit for trial, protecting the disputed estate-related amounts through security, and declining to grant an immediate decree.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a summary suit raises disputed but bona fide factual questions, unconditional leave need not be granted, and the Court may impose security to safeguard the claim; a nominee is entitled to receive the deposit amount but does not, by nomination alone, acquire ownership of it.

---