MF holdings: Should you opt for single or joint account?

Financial experts say a single account with nominee is better than opting for joint accounts

Single or joint accounts: These are the two types of accounts that investors can opt for to keep their mutual fund (MF) holdings. For the joint account though, an investor can choose between ‘joint' and ‘either or survivor’ modes of operation. So which of these account types is better? Typically, a single account that only requires a nominee is better. On the death of the account holder, the nominee gets access to the account and the proceeds. Joint accounts can be problematic. There are technical difficulties involved with transactions and they can also open up the risk of legal disputes. Most financial experts favour a joint account with ‘either or survivor’ as the mode of operation.

A single account implies that the investment is held in your sole name. A joint holding means shared ownership. However, unlike in the case of bank savings accounts, MFs allow relatives or friends, and not necessarily your spouse, to be the joint account holder. Moreover, you do not need a joint bank account to create a joint MF holding. You can fund your MF purchase from any of your own bank accounts as well.

Financial experts say that most couples tend to opt for accounts with the joint mode of operation. In such cases, difficulties arise with online transactions. Many platforms and websites of asset management companies are not geared for multiple OTPs (one-time passwords) and you are forced to submit physical forms and cheques for transactions. However, if you choose either or survivor mode, then you can transact online smoothly.

The second problem with joint holding is the possibility of legal disputes. The second or third holder may claim the asset as his or hers even though they could have been created from your personal funds alone. This issue may become particularly problematic in divorce cases. Income Tax law recognizes the first holder as the sole person responsible for payment of taxes from a jointly held MF investment. However, there are procedural glitches here as well. Joint account holders have received notices because their PAN numbers have been picked up in the Annual Information Statement (AIS). Though they are not liable to pay tax, the issue of responding to notices or communications from the tax departsuming,” ment can create hassles.

The third disadvantage of joint holding is that holder deletion is only possible in cases of deaths and divorces. Moreover, a nominee needs to be added by the survivors upon the death of either of joint holders.

In light of these issues, experts favour single holding for MFs with the nominees in place. However, there is one practical advantage in opting for a joint holding with either or survivor mode of operation. Upon the death of the first holder, the second holder can continue to operate the MF investment. In the case of the single account, nominees need to submit their KYC, death certificate of the account holder and various other documents in order to gain access to the MF folios of the deceased.

In an ‘ideal scenario’, the joint holder needs to intimate the fund house about the death of the first holder and submit related documents like a death certificate before operating the account. However, for emergency expenses, this may not always be feasible and hence in case of either or survivor, the second holder enjoys uninterrupted access to the MF folios. Apart from this, AMCs tend to be faster about processing transmission (inheritance) to a joint holder than a nominee. This is generally because the joint holder’s KYC is already done whereas the AMC only has a few details about the nominee.

Even if you choose single holding, ensure that nomination is done. Subhash Gupta, 43 a resident of Mumbai, faced significant challenges when attempting to claim mutual fund units that were held by his late father. The difficulties arose because his father had not nominated anyone for the accounts. This complicated the process of transferring the units to Subhash's name upon his father's demise. When Subhash sought legal advice, He was informed about the requirement for a succession planning certificate, which was necessary to establish Subhash's right as the legal heir to claim the units of his late father. Obtaining that certificate cost him ₹3 lakh, on top of the expenses and time already spent to claim MF units worth ₹16 lakh. "Things would have been a lot more convenient and easier if we had updated details of the nominee on time or created the folio with multiple holders," says Subhash.

“Seeking legal support in case of disputes or claims can be difficult; often, lawyers demand fees based on the amount you receive after settlement. Besides, it can be costly and time consays a mutual fund distributor who declined to be named.

To avoid these issues, financial planners say it is advisable to designate a nominee or joint holder for your assets and ensure that your estate planning documents, such as your will, are up to date and reflect your current wishes. “There are incidents where the claimants give up and the units remain unclaimed as the process involves complications in the absence of nomination and joint holding,” said an AMC executive who did not want to be identified. “A fool-proof way to simplify things is to have a will in place, which ensures the asset distribution as per your plan” says Kartik Sankaran, founder of Fiscal Fitness, an MF distributor in Mumbai.

Market regulator Sebi on 30 April exempted jointly held folios from the requirement to have a nominee. Previously, all MF accounts, whether owned by a single investor or jointly with another person, required a nominee to be designated. This nominee would get custody of the investment in case of the account holder's death. The new regulation exempts jointly held folios from the nomination requirement.

This regulation doesn't apply to single MF folios, which means opting for nomination is still mandatory for folios where the mode of holding is single.

(For an extended version of this story, go to livemint.com)

In case of a joint account, it is better to opt for the ‘either or survivor’ operating mode, say experts

Data taken from respective bank's website as on 2 May 2024; Only main entity of the merged banks are taken. Banks which merged with its main entity are removed from the table; The list of 15 banks is based on highest fixed deposit rates available for 5 years and above

Source: www.Bankbazaar.com

We understand that you are enquiring from the perspective of a landlord and therefore you intend to ensure that the tenanted premises is in good condition. We presume that there exists a duly registered deed between the landlord and the tenant recording the terms of the tenancy. In the event if the parties to the deed have predetermined and agreed upon the manner of notifying for inspection of the tenanted premises then, you (as landlord) must address a prior notice (as per the agreed mode of communication) calling upon the tenant to furnish inspection of the premises for assessing whether the tenanted premises requires to be repaired for maintenance.

As per Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, the obligation/duty is upon the landlord to maintain the tenanted premises in good condition to enable the tenant to utilize the premises for its purpose (residential / commercial). In case of non-compliance of the statutory obligation of the landlord, the tenant or the tenants are entitled to carry out the repair works and are entitled to either deduct from the rent or recover from the landlord (as the case may be).

In the event if the repair works required to be carried out are of the nature which mandates eviction of the tenant, then, the landlord will have to follow due process of law and file appropriate proceedings for eviction of the tenant.

Aradhana Bhansali is partner, Rajani Associates.

Do you have a personal finance query? Send in your queries at

and get them answered by industry experts.