Surviving Joint Holder Cannot Claim Ownership Of Bank Locker Contents After Co-Holder's Death: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has recently clarified that the “either or survivor” clause in a joint bank locker agreement, which ordinarily allows the surviving holder to operate the locker after the other's death, does not confer ownership rights over its contents.

“The concept of the entitlement of one of the joint holders to have a right over the money, which is deposited in the joint account or fixed deposit, is entirely different and cannot be applied to the case of a bank locker,” the Court observed.

Justice Easwaran S made the observation while dismissing a regular second appeal arising from a dispute over gold ornaments kept in a jointly held bank locker.

The central issue before the Court was whether a surviving holder of a joint bank locker could claim exclusive rights over the locker contents by invoking the “either or survivor” principle, disregarding the rights of a legatee under a Will.

The case concerned gold ornaments kept in a locker jointly held by Sreedevi Kammath and Supriya Kammath. Prior to opening the locker, Sreedevi had executed a registered Will in 2009 bequeathing her gold ornaments to Jayachandra Kammath. After Sreedevi's death, Jayachandra claimed absolute title over the ornaments under the Will and alleged that Supriya attempted to access the locker and remove the contents, prompting the suit.

Supriya contended that the ornaments had been gifted to her and that, as a joint holder, she was entitled to operate the locker under the “either or survivor” clause. She also argued that she alone operated the locker.

The trial court decreed the suit in favour of Jayachandra after considering the evidence, including the Advocate Commissioner's report verifying the locker contents. The first appellate court dismissed Supriya's appeal, leading to the second appeal before the High Court.

Rejecting Supriya's plea, the High Court held that the principle of “either or survivor” applicable to joint accounts cannot automatically be extended to bank lockers. The Court noted that a locker may contain goods belonging not only to the joint holders but also to third parties, making it impermissible to presume ownership in favour of the survivor.

“It will be wholly impermissible for this Court to accept such a proposition of law; just because a tripartite agreement (Ext.X1) is stated to have been executed between late Sreedevi S. Kammath, the appellant and the bank, it will not confer any ownership on the appellant and supersede a testamentary disposition made by late Sreedevi S. Kammath,” the Court said.

Emphasising principles governing interpretation of Wills, the court added:

“It will be wholly impermissible for this Court to adopt a narrow construction which would erode into the intention of the testator and give a different perspective to the bequest made by the testator.”

Holding that the tripartite locker agreement does not override a valid testamentary disposition, the Court ruled:

“In the present case, the tripartite agreement entered into between the bank and two joint account holders of a bank locker in the case of an 'either or survivor' account does not give ownership right to the surviving account holder; hence the owner of the goods can execute a Will which will not modify the terms of the agreement.”

Ruling so, the appeal was dismissed.

For Appellants: Advocates Reji George, Joe Joseph Kochikunnel, Manju Mohan, Saisankar S and Aayshath Najila Schemnad

For Respondents: Advocates T.S Harikumar, P.B Sahasranaman and Chetan Krishna