The argument, to the extent that we have set it out is, be it noted,about the law on joint accounts and the right of survivorship in joint accounts.Let us try to put the argument in a nutshell. The law on joint accounts and theright of survivorship therein is Federal law. Islamic law on joint accounts andthe right of survivorship cannot be made to apply directly in this country. Itmust be legislated for by the State legislature — which has not been done —and then only can it be applied, as State law. But even then it cannot changethe effect of the Federal law because the Federal law will always prevail.Therefore the Federal law of banking and contracts has to be the applicable law.
We think that the setting up of banking and contract laws againstthe respondents is misconceived and irrelevant. The question ‘Whether themonies in the joint accounts .... are the property of the [appellant]’ isreally a question whether the appellant is beneficially entitled to the amountsstanding in the joint accounts at the death of the deceased. The appellantclaims ‘property’ in the moneys as her own. She claims ownership of themoneys, that is, that she is beneficially entitled to them. But the banking lawon the right of survivorship in a joint account — which in actual fact doesnot exist in written form as Federal law and which is really a matter ofcontract purely — does not go so far as to confer on the survivor beneficialownership of the money in a joint account. This is clear from the followingpassage from The Law and Practice of Banking by J Milnes Holden, Vol 1(4th Ed) at p 387:
本周最热论坛帖子
楼主
发表于 22-8-2008 04:40 PM
至少我不用烦我的收益人如何去何去付这笔费用。。
3065 
69
