Another legal heir challenges bank nominee

Nominee in a bank account is only a trustee and not the absolute owner of the assets of the account. All the legal beneficiaries of the account holder have a legal right over the assets of the account. 

If the will states the deposit also, the deposits must be divided as per the will only, and nominee is not absolute owner but only a trustee for and on behalf of all co-sharers mentioned in the will.

In the query, it is mentioned that there is no Registered Will. Okay. But whether there is a Will that happens to be unregistered? An unregistered Will is very much valid, as  It is not necessary that Will need be Registered.

If the claim from the other Son is received by the Bank they settle as per Nomination, Banks do not settle the claim even as per nomination but will advise the claimants to get the matter settled or claim the same jointly duly furnishing the list of claimants as per the procedure of the Bank.

If there is indeed a Will although unregistered, it prevails over the Nomination and the bank shall settle the claim as per the Will only provided the amount is not already settled as per Nomination.

With due respects, I may provide a practical approach of bankers that they will keep the claim in abeyance after receiving the notice, and prolong the issue stating that they will consult superiors or take a legal opinion.  As far as I know, there is no such internal bank circular to pay to the nominee ignoring the demand of other legal heirs with a copy of such will through legal notice.  I stand corrected if any bank has issued a circular and as far as I know even superior delay the issue by referring to legal dept., and then to their HO advisers etc.  This is the normal practice of a prudent banker to facilitate lawful claimants and in tune with their depositor's last wish through a will.

If the Bank receives a legal notice, before the assets are delivered to the nominee, the only legal course open to the Bankers is to ask the beneficiaries to get an order from a Court of Law about the respective legal rights of the beneficiaries. 

In my clarification there was a typo and crucial sentence was not constructed properly  which changed the meaning in a sentence. The sentence reads as follows:

"If the claim from the other Son is received by the Bank they settle as per Nomination, Banks do not settle the claim even as per nomination but will advise the...."

The above sentence should be read as follows

"If the claim from the other Son is received by the Bank, Banks do not settle the claim even as per nomination but will advise the...."

I am sorry for the mistake which I rectified immediately in edit option and received on screen message on screen that it's modified. But in reality the mistake remained. Admin to kindly look into this technical snag in our site and get it repaired.

I clarify again that in case bank receives a claim from a person other than Nominee, they do not settle the claim as per nomination.  Bank shall advise the parties concerned to file claim settlement papers as per Bank procedure duly attaching Will if any and then based on such claim papers settle the same at the branch level or at a higher office as per delegation of powers vested.
 

If the nominee is not providing any information regarding will, bank account details to other legal heirs, then can the aggrieved heir write to all local banks to stop disbursing the money to the nominee or else provide these valid documents to the heirs to prove that bank has got a will and they have disbursed the money as per will? The nominee is hiding pan card, adhar card details, will , bank documents to the other heirs and avoiding furnishing all these...so money disbursement should be paused ...how to do that?

1.The bank can never ask Nominee anything except ID , death certificate in original, and claim.   They are not supposed to demand any other thing.

The bank claim settlement can only be stopped by a court order.

The general perception is that once a statute stipulates such nomination should be settled in such a way, it overrides all, unless the court restrains.

This is the reason I have solicited whether bankers issued any circular to the branches stipulating the laid down procedure against such claim settlement in favour of nominee when there are objections from other legal heirs.

May be the nomination rules may have to be amended stating such shares, as nomination can only be in the name of one person alone in banks, whereas post office nominations prescribes percentages and names of such nominees in detail.

My query to Shri SRP K remains unanswered as to whether any bank has issued instructions to stop the claim in favour of nomination if there is objection from others, as I am not aware of any such directive from IBA/RBI/Banks to branches.

You have not posted the complete facts.

The legal beneficiaries have to issue a legal notice to the Bank to stop the payment of assets of the deceased person to the nominee, informing about their legal share in the assets, and immediately approach a Court for an order to prove their respective claims. 

He can have right on it .send legal notice 

I do not think Banks issued any instructions to the effect that in case there is a counterclaim from other than Nominee, the claim to be kept in abeyance. As you know, there is much practice as much as law in banking. As per the practice, normally banks do not settle the claim as per nomination in case a counter claim comes. This is to avoid complications to the bank and/or the officials who settled the claim despite a counter claim.

The directives stipulate settlement of a nomination claim within 15 days.  Normally to avoid counterclaims the nominee always keeps it as a secret affair and gets the nomination settled within the time frame stipulated..

Sri G L N Prasad jee. True but what exactly happened or happening right now is not known. Maybe by now, the bank settled the claim to the Nominee. The query is not from the Nomine but by another person in whose favor the nomination is not there.  The query says "in the absence of a registered will", which may mean that there is an unregistered Will. My point is if there is an unregistered Will, it is very much valid and if a person approaches the Bank with such an unregistered Will what the bank is supposed to do. Supposing that Will is dated subsequent to the date of nomination to complicate the issue. Therefore, banks especially at the small branch level shall not venture to take a decision and settle the claim. Usually, they escalate to their Legal Department and seek guidance and nothing wrong with it which in the process may entail some delay.