Nirmala Singh and Others vs Jai Singh and Others

Dr. Vineet Kothari, J—The present Misc. Appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 has been filed by the appellants, who were the applicants before the learned Trial Court in Civil Civil Misc. Suit No. 17/2013 "Nirmala Singh & Anr. v. Jai Singh & Ors.", against the impugned order dated 21.05.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jaitaran, District Pali by which order, the learned Trial Court has dismissed the application of the appellants-applicants filed under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act seeking issuance of succession certificate in respect of their share in the Insurance Policy taken by the deceased Budhkaran Singh, husband of the applicant No. 1 (Smt. Nirmala Singh) and father of the applicant No. 2 (Asutosh) though the deceased had nominated his mother namely, Sugan Kanwar, in the said Insurance Policy.

The relevant portion of the findings of the learned Trial Court in the impugned order dated 21.05.2015 are quoted herein below for ready reference:--

The learned counsel Mr. Sandeep Sarupariya appearing for the appellants-applicants relied upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Shipra Sengupta Vs. Mridul Sengupta and Others, (2010) 125 FLR 270 : (2009) 10 JT 680 : (2010) 1 LLJ 857 : (2009) 11 SCALE 552 : (2009) 10 SCC 680 : (2010) 1 SCC(L&S) 99 : (2009) 14 SCR 407 : (2010) 3 SLJ 179 : (2009) 8 SLR 568 and submitted that in the present matter, the nominee, i.e., the mother of the deceased Budhkaran Singh Charan has only a right to receive the amount of the Insurance Policy and has no beneficial interest in the amount of Insurance Policy and, therefore, the learned Trial Court has erred in rejecting the application of the appellants-applicants filed under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act and could not have held and decided that the appellants, the wife (Smt. Nirmala Singh) and the son (Asutosh) of the deceased Budhkaran Singh Charan had no right or share in the receipts of the maturity value of the Insurance Policy of which, the deceased nominated his mother Sugan Kanwar. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the impugned order dated 21.05.2015 deserves to be modified to the extent it observed that except the nominee, no other person will have any claim or right. The learned counsel submitted that in the circumstances of the case, the application filed by the appellants under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act ought to have been allowed.

On the other hand, the learned counsels Mr. Rakesh Arora and Mr. D.K. Joshi appearing for the respondents-non-applicants supported the impugned order dated 21.05.2015 and submitted that the respondent No. 2, i.e., the mother of the deceased namely, Sugan Kanwar, has rightly been allowed to receive the money of the Insurance Policy in view of the nomination in her favour by the deceased Budhkaran Singh Charan but the same does not have any adverse affect on the rights of the appellants, as legal heirs of the deceased Budhkaran Singh Charan and have their share in the said maturity value of the Insurance Policy. The learned counsels submitted that no interference is called for in the impugned order dated 21.05.2015 and the present Misc. Appeal deserves to be dismissed being devoid of any merit.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Shipra Sengupta (supra) has held as under:--

"16. Learned counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in Ashok Chand Aggarwala Vs. Delhi Administration and Others, (1998) 7 AD 639 . This case related to the Delhi Cooperative Socities Act. The High Court while following Sarbati Devi case (supra) held that it is well settled that mere nomination made in favour of a particular person does not have the effect of conferring on the nominee any beneficial interest in property after the death of the person concerned. The nomination indicates the hand which is authorised to receive the amount or manage the property. The property or the amount, as the case may be, can be claimed by the heirs of the deceased, in accordance with law of succession, governing them.

The controversy involved in the instant case is no longer res integra. The nominee is entitled to receive the same, but the amount so received is to be distributed according to the law of succession.

In terms of the factual foundation laid in this case, the deceased died on 08.11.1990 having behind his mother and widow as his only heirs and legal representatives entitled to succeed. Therefore, on the day when the right of succession opened, the appellant, his widow became entitled to one half of the amount of the general provident fund, the other half going to the mother and on her death, the other surviving son getting the same.

In view of the clear legal position, it is made abundantly clear that the amount in any head can be received by the nominee, but the amount can be claimed by the heirs of the deceased in accordance with law of succession governing them. In other words, nomination does not confer any beneficial interest on the nominee. In the instant case amounts so received are to be distributed according to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The State Bank of India is directed to release half of the amount of general provident fund to the appellant now within two months from today along with interest.

The appeal filed by the appellant is accordingly allowed and disposed of, leaving the parties to bear their own costs."

In view of the aforesaid clear legal position, the present Misc. Appeal filed by the appellants-applicants-Smt. Nirmala Singh W/o late Budhkaran Singh Charan and Ashutosh S/o of late Budhkaran Singh Charan is partly allowed to the extent of the impugned portion occurred in para 8 is liable to be quashed and set aside. The said portion is quoted below:--

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the clear legal position, as indicated herein above, it is held that in the present case, the mother namely, Sugan Kanwar will have only the right to receive the maturity value of the Insurance Policy of the deceased Budhkaran Singh Charan on the basis of her nomination but, the aforesaid quoted impugned portion of para 8 of the impugned order will not come in the way of the present appellants-applicants to claim their share in the maturity value of the Insurance Policy of late Budhkaran Singh Charan in accordance with law.

With the observations aforesaid, the present Misc. Appeal stands disposed of. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned and the Court below forthwith.