Will for fixed deposite

Ritesh Rathod (Querist) 27 November 2017 This query is : Resolved
Dear Sir,
My grandmother having a 4 son only and now she is 85 of years age. My Grandmother deposited 7 Lacs as a FD in Bank and nominate her elder son as a nominee for that FD as Bank allowed only one member as a Nominee. Now My Grandmother want to equal distribution of that property among the her 4 son equally after her death deducting from FD amount all the expenses (i.e funeral etc..). kindly suggest on this what to do?

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Vijay Raj Mahajan (Expert) 27 November 2017
Make a Will of the grandmother with regard to equal distribution of the FD amount after deducting funeral expenses amongst all her 4 sons.
The Will should be signed or should have thumb impressions of the grandmother in presence of two reliable witnesses who too will sign in her presence.
This Will can be got registered form Tehsil office of your district or attested by notary.
The Will supersede all other testaments, however the nomination of one son in FD account continues as that son is to just collect the FD amount from the bank and after deducting all expenses of funeral distribute the amount equally among all the 4 sons of your grandmother.

SHIRISH PAWAR, 7738990900 (Expert) 27 November 2017
Other sons can file succession certificate application in the court and they will be entitle for fixed deposit amount in equal ratio.

Guest (Expert) 27 November 2017
Nominee is just a custodian of the F.D with responsibility of ensuring that the legal heir of the depositor gets the money from a F.D. Registered will can solve your problem which will need doctor's certificate.

Guest (Expert) 27 November 2017
@ Ritesh Rathod,

Is the nominee of your grandmother not willing to share the proceeds of the FD with his three brother?

Guest (Expert) 27 November 2017
@ Dr.Archana V Yadav,

Often experts quote like you that the nominee is merely a trustee or custodian of the wealth of the deceased to be shared among the legal heirs of the deceased. But, so far, none has come forward with the clear cut provision of any Section of any Act in support of their contention.

So, can you please quote any specific Section of any Act that specifies that a nominee is merely a custodian, not a beneficiary under law. NO COURT JUDGMENT PLEASE, AS CASE LAWS DON'T HAVE UNIVERSAL APPLICATION ON ALL TYPES OF NOMINATION CASES, THE NATURE CHARACTERISTICS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES BEING DIFFERENT FROM CASE TO CASE.

Guest (Expert) 27 November 2017
@ Shirish Pawar,

The grand mother is not dead, still alive. So, where arises the need of succession certificate during her life time, itself?

Guest (Expert) 27 November 2017
Ms. Dr. Archana V aghav,

I would also like to be enlightened with your knowledge, as desired by Mr. Jigyasu. In fact, I had also been raising such question time and again before the experts, but could not get any firm legal quote.

Guest (Expert) 27 November 2017
Dear Ritesh Rathod,

Instead of adopting some round about process for making preparation for distribution of the proceeds of the FD of your grandmother after her death, still with uncertainty of events, IS THERE ANY PROBLEM FOR YOUR GRANDMOTHER to make 4 different FDs of equal amount of Rs.1.75L with each son as nominee for different accounts from each other?

I don't think the sons would be any chance for the sons to render their mother left without last rites.

Guest (Expert) 27 November 2017
Sir,
kindly refer these notification
RBI/2004-05/490
DBOD.No.Leg. BC.95 /09.07.005/2004-05
RBI/2014-15/29
UBD.BPD.(PCB). MC.No:13/13.01.000/2014-15

Guest (Expert) 27 November 2017
Fixed deposit must be paid only to nominees, says HC

In the event of the death of a Fixed Deposit holder, the deposited money should be paid only to nominees even if there were rival claims by other individuals on the ground of being the legal heirs of the deceased, the Madras High Court Bench here has said.
Justice K.K. Sasidharan made the observation while allowing a writ petition filed by M. Rajeswari of Virudhunagar who had been nominated by her husband Muthuchamy to receive Rs. 8.5 lakh deposited by him with the Virudhunagar District Central Cooperative Bank.
The judge said that the bank should necessarily pay the amount to the nominee and it could not be heard to say that the amount was not disbursed to her just because there was a rival claim made by another legal heir of the depositor.
Sounding a note of caution, the judge said that the payment of the entire deposited amount to the nominee would not in any way stand in the way of other legal heirs claiming their proportionate share from the nominee by instituting appropriate civil proceedings.
They could even obtain an interim order from the civil court restraining the bank from disbursing the amount to the nominee until the dispute over their share was sorted out.
But in no circumstances, a bank could stop disbursement on its own by citing rival claims.
The purpose of nominating a person with respect to fixed deposits was to simplify the procedures involved in disbursing the amount.
There was no legal requirement that a person nominated must be the legal heir or representative of the depositor, the judge added.

Ms.Usha Kapoor (Expert) 28 November 2017
Agree WITH Mr..RAJ KUMAR ALIAS NARASIMHA IN TOTO.NOTHING MORE TO SAY.

Guest (Expert) 28 November 2017
@ Ms. Archana V Aghav,

Hopes dashed from a PhD Scholar in law!

Your reply can be termed as a layman's crude reply, not even of mediocre lawyer, what to speak of a professional and a scholar with a highest qualification of Doctorate in law!.

Your profile suggests about you to be highest (PhD) qualified legal professional, "Practising and teaching law to law students and Business school students since 2003" AND ALSO that you belong to a "registered partnership firm known as "LEX CONSULTANCY LAW FIRM" in Pune."

Of course impressive introduction, but with no such acumen visible in your reply about the status of nomination.

SHALL I THINK THAT YOU HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE EVEN TO UNDERSTAND MY QUESTION, WHERE I ASKED FOR THE SECTION OF ANY ACT THAT DECLARES THE NOMINEE MERELY AS A TRUSTEE OF OTHERS, WHERE INSTEAD OF QUOTING ANY SECTION OF SOME STATUTE, YOU JUST QUOTED AN EXECUTIVE INSTRUCTION ISSUED BY THE RBI, WHICH IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY SPECIFIC SECTION OF ANY SPECIFIC ACT?

A question arises, what can be the quality of talent of such law students and the prospective lawyers, who are being taught by you merely on assumptions and suppositions of a faculty with 14 years of experience of teaching law?

Guest (Expert) 28 November 2017
Mr. Jigyasu thank you so much for your concern and also for giving your valuable time to read my profile.
Instead of worrying about my student I feel sir, you should worry about yourself. Secondly I have joined this forum answer the query of layman and not to respond the query of expert like you. Looking at your response I really feel petty for your thinking and approach towards other expert.
Sir, being a senior person I respect you but that doesn't mean ill accept anything. If I'm wrong you have right to correct me but this is not at all the way to respond.

Thanks & Regards

P. Venu (Expert) 28 November 2017
As already suggested, the Grandmother can execute a Will.It is not necessary that a Will be registered.

P. Venu (Expert) 28 November 2017
The cause of this Forum is better served if the experts avoid the temptation to be judgmental of other experts. Every expert makes suggestions based on his understanding. And every posting addressed to the querist, and querist only.

A. A. JOSE (Expert) 28 November 2017
Perhaps, for the benefit of all of us, the "more knowledgeable, highly experienced and learned" Legal Analyst may do well to enlighten the specific provision or Section of Act, if any, which stipulates that the "Nominee is a mere custodian and not a beneficiary" please.

Guest (Expert) 28 November 2017
As far as the Banking Procedures, Rules and Guidelines to the Banks in India it would be made only by RBI

Guest (Expert) 28 November 2017
Rightly advised and agree with Dr Archana

Guest (Expert) 28 November 2017
Agree with Mr A.A.Jose Baroda

Guest (Expert) 28 November 2017
" We have No Right to express an opinion until we know all of the answers " - kurt Cobain

Guest (Expert) 28 November 2017
Beware of Semi- erudite who thinks he is an erudite.He fails to naturally detect sophistry..

Guest (Expert) 28 November 2017
Yes 13 yrs experience and knowledge made me person of good character. It gives me courage to deal with so called great experts. Knowledgeable people always encourage others. Respect other persons views. I may not be a "great lawyer" like you but yes I'm good person, which makes me good lawyer and also a teacher. Jigyasuji try to become good person with good character first.
Knowledge gives power and good character gives respect.

Guest (Expert) 29 November 2017
So, is he making the comments because:
- he's trying to convince you that he's right and the other person is wrong.
- he's trying to create a bond with you. Sort of like "us" versus "them" mentality.
- he wants you to see him as a victim and to do something to fix the situation.
- he's jealous of the other person.
- he's trying to drag you into his drama of how bad things are for him.
- he's upset because that person isn't doing exactly what he thinks they should be doing.

- he feels like he's been abandoned or rejected by that person.
- he's feeling frustrated and feels like no one is there to help him.
- he's afraid or feel insecure in the situation and by making the negative comments he makes himself feel better or more in control of the situation.
- he's using the negative comments about the other person to make you not believe anything the other person has said or done.
- he's creating a distraction from what he's done by making negative comments about someone else.
It helps if you can figure out why he's making the comments. You'll see that it's quite likely not really about the other person at all. It's just his way of expressing his fears or frustration or trying to make himself feel like he has some control in the situation. Or, he may be trying to get you emotionally involved in the situation so you'll do something to fix it.
The Response
Once you know why he's making the comments, it's easier to not to feel hurt and guilty that you're not protecting the other person. You can detach from the comments because it's not really about you or the other person. It's most likely all about him dealing with a fear he has or wanting some action taken on his behalf. It will also make it easier for you to decide how you want to respond.
A few suggestions are:
- you could just say nothing. If you don't encourage him to continue he may stop. By doing this, you're demonstrating that you're not interested in hearing negative comments about others.
- you could try and change the subject to something else. For example, "Oh, that reminds me...".
- you could make a non committal response like, "You may be right." That will often stop a blamer from going on and on about something. He's made his point. You haven't disagreed with him nor have you really agreed with him. But, you've responded in a way that will probably satisfy him.
- if you're able to, you could leave the room if you don't want to hear him continuing to say negative comments about other people.
- you could make a flattering comment to him, "You've done a good job keeping up with all that extra work they've given you." Just make sure that if you make a flattering comment that you really mean it otherwise he'll pick up on your insincerity and it could trigger an attack against you.
- if you think the person is open to humor, you could try to make a joke out of it. Be careful with this one though. You don't want him to think that you're not taking him seriously or that you're making fun of him.
If you do decide to make a comment defending the person, be prepared to accept the consequences that you might be severely attacked for taking this action. You also might have to deal with him taking revenge out on you later as well. This is the main difference between dealing with a blamer and dealing with just a generally negative or insecure person. With the blamer, you'll be punished for not agreeing with him.
The one other thing you may want to do is to realize that he may be trying to distract you from the real issue or trying to discredit the other person. It may be a situation where you need to gather information from another source so you can determine what really happened in the situation and not just take his version of events.

Guest (Expert) 29 November 2017
If at all some one decides to stay away from evil presently they could find no place on earth with out it

Guest (Expert) 29 November 2017
They should be courageous and face and over come evil than trying to get rid of it.

Vijay Raj Mahajan (Expert) 29 November 2017
Nominee is just a custodian of bank account amount after the death of account holder was well decided by the Supreme Court of India in the given case law:-

Supreme Court of India
Civil Appeal NOS.1684 OF 2004
Hon'ble Judge(s): AFTAB ALAM, R.M. LODHA
Date of Judgment: October 06, 2010
Ram Chander Talwar & another Vs. Devender Kumar Talwar & others

O R D E R
AFTAB ALAM, J.

Heard counsel appearing for the appellants.

Appellant no.1, who was the nominee in the bank account held by his deceased mother claims full rights over the money lying in the account, to the exclusion of the respondent who is none else than his full brother. The claim is based on section 45 ZA of the Banking Regulation Act, which according to him, makes the nominee of the depositor the sole beneficiary, vested with all the rights of sole depositor. Mr. Swetank Shantanu, counsel appearing for the appellants, strenuously argued that by virtue of sub-section 2 of section 45 ZA, the nominee of the depositor, after the death of the depositor acquires all his/her rights to the express exclusion of all other persons and, therefore, the respondent can not lay any claim to the money in the account or in regard to the articles that might be lying in the bank locker held by their deceased mother.

The submission is quite fallacious and is based on a complete misconception of the provision of the Act. Sub-section 2 of the 45ZA, reads as follows:-

45ZA xxx xxx xxx xxx

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any disposition, whether testamentary or otherwise, in respect of such deposit, where a nomination made in the prescribed manner purports to confer on any person the right to receive the amount to deposit from the banking company, the nominee shall, on the death of the sole depositor or, as the case may be, on the death of all the depositors, become entitled to all the rights of the sole depositor or, as the case may be, of the depositors, in relation to such deposit to the exclusion of all other persons, unless the nomination is varied or cancelled in the prescribed manner.
xxx xxx xxx xx (emphasis added)

Section 45ZA(2) merely puts the nominee in the shoes of the depositor after his death and clothes him with the exclusive right to receive the money lying in the account. It gives him all the rights of the depositor so far as the depositor's account is concerned. But it by no stretch of imagination makes the nominee the owner of the money lying in the account. It needs to be remembered that the Banking Regulation Act is enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to banking. It is in no way concerned with the question of succession.
All the monies receivable by the nominee by virtue of section 45 ZA(2) would, therefore, form part of the estate of the deceased depositor and devolve according to the rule of succession to which the depositor may be governed.

We find that the High Court has rightly rejected the appellant's claim relying upon the decision of this Court in V.N. Khanchandani & Anr. v. V.L. Khanchandani & Anr., (2000) 6 SCC 724. The provision under Section 6(1) of the Government Saving Certificate Act, 1959 is materially and substantially the same as the provision of Section 45ZA(2) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and the decision in V.N. Khanchandani applies with full force to the facts of this case.
We find no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

V R SHROFF (Expert) 29 November 2017
Though Nominee is mere care taker, and is bound to hand over the property to Legal heirs; He acquires lots of right..
Its already high lighted by above experts and need not be repeated.

One Special request to ALL THE EXPERTS: Please do not comment on the reply of any other Experts.
You need to reply the Querist only.
This is very important to maintain decorum; Keep the name of LCI and it's Experts Shining .
We Experts had gone through long struggle, in past and many Querist too, had insulted, abused the Experts too.
Do not spoil the prestige of LCI. Never try to throw mud on Experts.
Readers automatically judge all Experts.You only answer the Query.
And avoid to reply Anonymous, Repeated, Imaginary Queries.

A. A. JOSE (Expert) 29 November 2017
The "more knowledgeable and erudite" Legal Analyst may kindly enlighten the specific Section of any Act in this regard for the benefit of all.

Dr J C Vashista (Expert) 29 November 2017
I endorse the opinion and advise of Mr. V R Shroff.

Isaac Gabriel (Expert) 01 December 2017
It is the considered opinion of the experts Mr.Shroff and Vasishtaji.I hope your advise would be adhered to.

Guest (Expert) 02 December 2017
@ Mr. A.A.Jose Baroda,

There is no use of being proud or celebrating on the borrowed ideas of others. Why not bring your own original idea?

I wonder, why the lawyers community believes that the verdict of the courts are essentially the word of God that cannot be wrong, while various courts, in themselves have been repudiating the judgments of one or the other courts.

So, in this case, if you are so over-enthusiastic to realize about my knowledge you will stand nowhere, particularly in this specific case. Better at first, re-read my query through which I have asked by leave aside the court judgments, prove if any section of any Act of Law clearly states that the nominee is merely a trustee AND then prove your stance beyond any doubt.

Don't forget, beinbg human beings, judges are also prone to errors. If you and other experts make a proper analysis of Section 45ZA(2), you will find the justice to have been profusely miscarried through the judgment referred to by Advocate, Shri Vijay Raj Mahajan.

Hope you would like to come forward with your own original views.

Guest (Expert) 02 December 2017
@ Ms. Archana V Aghav, now guest,

Not a question of wrong or right, but if your aim is to answer the query of laymen, that should be quite to the point, not just like a loose talk. Moreover, when a law teacher, his/her aim should be that his/her answer should not have the scope of being interpreted against the legal provisions. So far as worrying about me or any expert being expected to worry about himself or herself, that is not the question, being responsible to guide a layman, we must have some worry about his/her position that he may not get injustice, in case he prefers to go to the court of law.

Moat of the lawyers must be aware of the fact that most of the litigants gets dejected if they are not able to get justice when the justice is made to be miscarried by the misdeed of the opposite party's lawyer or wrong interpretation of law on the part of any one, including the judge of the case.

Guest (Expert) 02 December 2017
@ Mr. P. Venu,

I have seen repeated use of your most preferred word "judgmental", particularly against me. If you think cause if better served by wrong guidance of the layman with misinterpretation of law by any expert, please don't mind, it can be nothing except your misconception. You are free to assume me to be judgmental. Even you are judgmental, when you declare me as judgmental. So, what is difference between you and me?

A matter to ponder is, if someone has been termed as expert, he should also feel the responsibility like an expert to guide a layman with as much as possible expertise. not merely on hit & trial basis. Although not intentional on the part of most of the experts, but you and some other experts would have found that some specific fake type of experts.usually try to confuse the querists with their multiples of vague, misleading and wrong advice and then proudly claim as if they have given very illustrated advice. Contrarily, they do nothing except to playing a number game to falsely ride above all in the ladder of hall of fame.

Contrarily, if I point something wrong, my intention is usually to alert the querist from getting misled. Rest assured, I do not touch any query or the reply of any expert, if I am not aware of the legal aspects about the subject matter. But, if you perceive my efforts as judgmental, that is your prerogative. But, rest assured, you would always find my intentions to be quite honest, may be towards the gullible solution seeker or to see the expert learn from his own mistake.

However, egoistic type of experts or querists may feel otherwise by not taking my posts in the right perspective.

Guest (Expert) 02 December 2017
@ Mr. N.J.S. Rajkumar,

On one hand you have agreed with the views of Mr. A.A. Jose Baroda, on the other you have stated, "We have No Right to express an opinion until we know all of the answers," BUT still further, you have stated, "Beware of Semi- erudite who thinks he is an erudite.He fails to naturally detect sophistry."

So, a question arises, to which category you belong? if you think Mr. A.A.Jose Baroda is right, as the right thinker, you may help him to find answer to satisfy my query about the correct section of a relevant Act of Law, which you think would clearly prescribe a nominee as merely a trustee..

If unable to quote the correct section of the correct Act of Law, this reply, just make clear, had you had the right to ditto the opinion of Mr. A.A. Jose Baroda and why you should also not be treated as a semi-erudite?

P. Venu (Expert) 02 December 2017
The instant query has been raised by Mr. Ritesh Rathod and the experts have offered the suggestions. If Jigyasu has any query to be answered or any issue to be discussed, it is open to him to make a separate posting.

Guest (Expert) 02 December 2017
@ Advocate Shri Vijay Raj Mahajan,

Would you like to re-read my question, where I have very clearly stated, "NO COURT JUDGMENTS PLEASE" in my very clear question, "can you please quote any specific Section of any Act that specifies that a nominee is merely a custodian, not a beneficiary under law. NO COURT JUDGMENT PLEASE, AS CASE LAWS DON'T HAVE UNIVERSAL APPLICATION ON ALL TYPES OF NOMINATION CASES, THE NATURE CHARACTERISTICS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES BEING DIFFERENT FROM CASE TO CASE.

I respect you very much, as I find your answers are mostly aimed at sincere advice to the laymen. But, in your response in the present context, you still quoted a judgment that clearly indicates miscarried the justice, even though Section 45ZA nowhere states the nominee as merely a trustee of the depositor.

With reference to the same section 45ZA, my simple question for you is to rethink to which extent the judgment can be right. What does the RIGHT OF THE DEPOSITOR MEANS, as the section under reference gives a clear stress that "the nominee shall, on the death of the sole depositor or, as the case may be, on the death of all the depositors, 'BECOME ENTITLED TO ALL THE RIGHTS OF THE SOLE DEPOSITOR' or, as the case may be, of the depositors, in relation to such deposit to the exclusion of all other persons?"

A supplementary question with reference to the provisions of the said Section arises, "SHALL THE SOLE DEPOSITOR OR DEPOSITORS BE DEEMED TO BE THE TRUSTEES OF THE LEGAL HEIRS" AND WOULD HAVE BEEN BOUND TO DISTRIBUTE HIS SAVINGS, MERELY AS A TRUSTEE DURING HIS LIFE TIME, HAD HE NOT DIED, as the nominee is also destined to become entitled the rights of the depositor?

If you or any other expert finds the LEGAL DEFINITION of "RIGHTS HOLDER" OF A DEPOSITOR, as a "TRUSTEE", I would be much obliged to all of you.

Guest (Expert) 02 December 2017
Experts Shri V.R. Shroff, Dr. J.C. Vashista, and Dhri Isaac Gabriel may also like to make qa review of the position, as desired from the Advocate, Shri Vijay Raj Mahajan, as above. I shall be much obliged, if they can also guide me correctly.

I don't think, if any of the right spirited lawyer/ expert out of you can be held responsible for contempt of court, if on using their constitutional right of expression in expressing their opinion in favour or even against the court judgment under reference only with specific reference to the provision of the Section 45ZA.

No grudge if anyone does't have the courage to express his honest personal opinion.

However, if anyone feels that I have committed an offense of contempt of court by expressing my honest opinion against miscarriage of justice through the aforesaid judgment and feels like teaching me a lesson by filing a case of contempt of court, he may also feel free to do so, but with legal jurisdiction of Delhi only, not elsewhere.

Guest (Expert) 02 December 2017
@ Mr. P Venu,

With reference to his latest post advising me to raise a query separately, i.e., out of context of the present query of Mr. Ritesh Rathod, as well as the sidetracking responses of some of the experts, Mr. Venu may please like to quote any specific reason or the rule of the LCI, why the query cannot be raised in this very thread in context with the opinions expressed by the various experts, and why to raise out of context in separate thread?

Let Mr. Ritesh Rathod also get confirmation about the rightness of any advice of some specific expert, rather than his keeping himself as confused about the mix-up of right and wrong pieces of advice.

Why not Mr. P. Venu take the credit of proving me wrong with specific reference to the questions raised in the thread addressed to Advocate Shri Vijay Raj Mahajan.

Kumar Doab (Expert) 21 May 2018
Readers may not confuse Ms. Archana V Aghav as Guest.
One of the multiple fake Id’s of
IT=@PSD
The postor at4th,5th,6th,7th,8th,9th post and so on is one and same entity with multiple fake ID’s….that have been shunted out blacklisted.
At another fake ID IT=@PSD has still pasted picture (although changed) of a sick and old entity.
IT=@PSD has been taught and educated many times earlier also, BUT just for the heck of IT,
IT=@PSD
vainly tries to advertise and show off by posting unending and insatiable itch to litter nuisance and Fails everytime.

Kumar Doab (Expert) 21 May 2018

Even if 4 FDR are prepared by the Lady as in query the maturity amount of deceased owner of FDR’s shall have to be pooled and divided equally amongst legal heirs.
SO there is NO benefit of FDR’s with different nominees.
The law as interpreted by Apex Court shall prevail not the good for nothing post of IT=@PSD from any of multiple fake Id’s and any number of times.

IT=@PSD has not made any contribution in any thread initiated by this querist also.
i.e. Mr. Ritesh Rathod.
The post as below of IT=@PSD is good for nothing as usual and =NIL,ZERO in this and all threads.

“Dear Ritesh Rathod, Instead of adopting some round about process for making preparation for distribution of the proceeds of the FD of your grandmother after her death, still with uncertainty of events, IS THERE ANY PROBLEM FOR YOUR GRANDMOTHER to make 4 different FDs of equal amount of Rs.1.75L with each son as nominee for different accounts from each other? I don't think the sons would be any chance for the sons to render their mother left without last rites.”

Kumar Doab (Expert) 21 May 2018
At the cost of repetition;

IT=@PSD

has littered IT's trademark Tamashaa with IT being sole Tamashbeen ( IT=@PSD's own favorite words) in other threads also that are initiated by
LCI Querist Mr. Ritesh Rathod

and why
because IT=@PSD was reminded of IT's=@PSD idiopathic show
i..e otherwise =NIL,ZERO

in all threads of this querist also from day 1 by IT=@PSD under all multiple fake ID's of IT=@PSD..

Kumar Doab (Expert) 24 May 2018
“……………….The nominee is only a trustee…………………..”
The author is at 2nd last post in following thread at page 2.
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/details.asp?mod_id=177966&offset=2
The 3 authors ( 2 being multiple fake ID's of IT=@PSD) may very well continue to argue each other till eternity…………….with their Trademark zeal and fervor….
In this and other threads e.g;
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/Land-Dispute-680696.asp
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/Different-father-s-name-in-all-my-certificates-681721.asp
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/Nomination-claims-over-property-post-death-677811.asp

Will for fixed deposite

Similar Resolved Queries :