If cheque was signed by account holder before his death then cheque can be deposited after his death 

the cheque must be bearing date before his death 

On the basis of few lines of your query no proper decision can be cited.

You have to give more details of the dispute to which you want citation. 

14. In Sh. Vijay Singh & Ors vs Smt. Manali Malik & OrsDecided on 5 May, 2009 Honble High Court of Delhi in IA No. 6459/2008 in CS (OS) No. 930/2007 analyzed this kind of situation and discussed the whole law of negotiable instrument act. The relevant paras are:

10. The relevant provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act relating to a cheque have been perused. Section 6 defines the cheque as a bill of exchange drawn on a specified banker and not expressed to be payable otherwise than on demand.

Normally cheques are issued on the banks holding the monies of the drawer of the cheque. The bank is in the position of the debtor of the drawer of the cheque. The cheque is thus an order of the drawer thereof as creditor, to the bank who is his debtor, to pay to the payee of the cheque on the date of presentment the amount thereof. The IA No.6459/2008 in CS(OS) No.930/2007 Page 7 of 14 relationship between the drawer of the cheque and his banker is contractual.

11. Under Section 31, the liability of the bank as drawee of the cheque is, subject to having sufficient funds of the drawer in its hands properly applicable to the payment of such cheque, to pay the cheque when duly required so to do. It is only when the bank defaults in such payment that it becomes personally liable to compensate the drawer for any loss or damage caused by such default. Else, bank as a drawee of the cheque is not liable personally for default in payment thereof. The text book on the Negotiable Instruments Act by Bhashyam & Adiga (17th Edition) under Section 31 thereof states that at the instant of the death Suit No.840/06 6 of the drawer, the title to the balance vests in his legal representative and his own order is not competent to withdraw any part of that which is no longer his property. It is further stated that on death of a customer, the order of the customer comes to an end and only if the banker pays the cheque before notice of death, is it valid. It would thus appear that the death of customer terminates his authority to order payment and operates as a countermand of the outstanding cheque.

As per judgment t of Delhi high court bank can make payment  of it has no notice of death of account holder 

Delhi District Court

Memo Of Parties vs Smt. Bharti Devi on 16 August, 2011

 IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIKRAM­ CIVIL JUDGE OF (NORTH) DISTRICT,


 TIS HAZARI COURT­DELHI

 Suit No.840/06

Unique ID No.02401C[deleted]

MEMO OF PARTIES:

Sh. Birender Singh Kangar

R/o H.No. 1/1390, BJ Block,

Mansarovar Park,

Delhi­110099

 ...........Plaintiff

 VERSUS

Smt. Bharti Devi

W/o Late Sh. Lalit Kumar

Master Tushar

S/o Late sh. Lalit Kumar

Both R/o Shiv Colony,

Behind Good Luck School

Heli Mandi, Pataudi,

District Gurgaon, Haryana

 ..........Defendant

Date of Institution of suit: 22.09.2004

Date on which judgment was reserved: 06.08.2011

Date of announcement of judgment: 16.08.2011

 Suit For Recovery

Judgment

laid that a cheque ceases to be a cheque on the demise of the drawer as it ceases to be the order of a person entitled to make an order to bank to pay the money thereupon. The suit under order 37, thus not maintainable on such cheque. In the above judgment it is also held that "The said mandate, on demise of customer, ceases to be a mandate. On the moment of demise of customer, the bank, in terms of its contract, is holding the money not to the order of the deceased customer, but to the order of his nominees or legal representatives. The bank cannot thus act on the order of the deceased customer. The cheque, which has been held to be merely an order, thus, on demise of drawer, ceases to be a cheque". Therefore, no money can be withdrawn form the account of deceased except under the order of legal representative or nominees.

I have quoted 2 judgments for your perusal 

As per law, the death terminates all contract. Therefore, when the banker comes to know about the death of the drawer, he has no mandate to debit any amount from the account of the drawer. However, if the banker pays the cheque before it receives the notice of his death, it is a valid transaction.

If the cheque is dated back to the lifetime of the drawer then it is very much valid even after his/her death within three months from the date of cheque.

Therefore there can be no dispute maintainable for withdrawing money prescribed in the cheque post death of the drawer by the drawee.

You have disclosed the actual problem you face or the background of the case which is pending or disposed by any court, hence without any proper reference or without knowing yor situation it will not be possible to quote any judgment as desired.

Your question is that one legal heir withdraw the money from the drawer's account with the consent of other legal heir, however it is not known that on whose name was the cheque favored by the drawer and what is the dispute going on between the legal heirs.

You can revert with more proper details instead of putting riddles and asking for judgment

You can contact your advocate who is dealing with this case who will be the better person to fetch you the desired judgment.

In the event of death and there is a nominee to that account then the bank will oblige the payment too the nominee without seeking the consent of other legal heirs.

However the nominee cannot use the entire money, he is just a trustee to receive the money on behalf of all the legal heirs and distribute the same to all the legal heirs and if he is one of the legal heirs then he can take his share alone.

When a bank account has a registered nominee, the transfer process after the account holder's death is relatively straightforward.

 The nominee simply needs to provide identification documents and the deceased person's death certificate to claim the funds.

The bank then processes the transfer based on the nomination.

Whereas in your case it appears that the nominee has withdrawn the money from the account of the deceased mother post her death, it may be for funeral expenses or any other expenses involving the family expenses, but the procedure follows by him to withdraw the money in haste is contradiction to law.

It was the duty of the nominee to intimate the bank about the death of the account holder and get the money lying in her account transferred to his account and distribute the same to all other legal heirs . 

it appears that the nominee did not follow the due process of law instead he had straightaway drawn the money by a cheque singed by the deceased prior o her death and he utilised the money for her funeral expenses, which clearly states that he violated the law and had usurped the money. 

This can be termed as abuse of law or misuse of his position as nominee for wrongful gains, hence in this situation no judgment will come to his rescue if the plaintiff conducts the case with the available substantial documentary evidences agaisnt the nominee for recovery or even if he is slapping a criminal case agaisnt the so called nominee/legal heir.

If any or all of the other legal heir(s) of the deceased father lodge(s) a complaint with the police against the other son who withdrew the funds, then the police may book him under Section 379 IPC for imprisonment up to 3 years or with fine or both. 

Dear Client,

The nominee acts as a trustee for the legal heirs and does not gain ownership rights over the funds. This position was reinforced in the Supreme Court cases Sarbati Devi v. Usha Devi 1984 AIR 346 and Shipra Sengupta vs. Mridul Sengupta & Ors. AIR ONLINE 2009 SC 408 where the court held that the nominee merely has the right to receive the funds but must distribute them according to the applicable succession laws​.This is relevant as it underscores that the nominee does not gain beneficial ownership rather acts as a trustee of the funds.  To defend against allegations under IPC Section 420 (cheating), the nominee should provide evidence of the initial consent from all legal heirs for the withdrawal, and clarify that the funds were used in good faith for legitimate purposes such as funeral expenses. Documented consent and proper accounting of the funds used can help mitigate accusations of fraudulent intent. Consulting with a legal professional for personalized advice and representation in court is also recommended to navigate the complexities of such disputes.

- A nominee can act only as a trustee on behalf of the legal heir and holds the assets or property until a conclusive decision on the matter of succession is reached

- As per Supreme Court , in the matter of Shakti Yezdani & Another vs Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar & Others , the  nomination is only for convenience and doesn't override the law on succession. Thus, when the successors stake their claim to the property of the deceased, the nominee cannot decline.