Order This civil revision by the Objector of the Succession Case is directed against the order dated 16.2.1999 by which his prayer for amendment of the objection petition has been rejected. The short facts of the case are: On the death of Ashok Kumar Pandey, his wife opposite party no.1 herein, Shiva Pandey @ Shiv Kumari Devi @ Shiv Kumari Pandey tiled an application seeking grant of succession certificate under Section 370 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 which was allowed by the First Subordinate Judge, Chapra by his judgment and order dated 19.1.96 passed in succession case No.3/93. The mother of the deceased another objector preferred appeal, (M.A. No. 1/96) before the District Judge, Saran, which on transfer, came to the file of 8th Additional District Judge. By order dated 19.8.98, the appellate court remanded the case to the trial court with a direction to send the findings on the issue whether Late Ashok Kumar Pandey had executed any nomination in respect of the Group Saving Linked Insurance Scheme in favour of respondent no. 3 i.e. the petitioner herein. The trial court was given liberty to take additional evidence. At this stage the petitioner tiled an application seeking amendment in para 13 of his objection to the effect that he had come to learn that deceased Ashok Kumar Pandey had made him the nominee. By the impugned order the court below has rejected the prayer. 2. Shri Binod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue as to whether Ashok Kumar Pandey had executed any nomination, being the only issue which is to be decided by the trial court on remand, the court below has committed an obvious error in rejecting the petition for amendment which has thus direct bearing on the issue. He submitted that the amendment, far from changing the nature of the suit/proceeding, would help in complete adjudication of the point at issue and therefore, it would be appropriate to allow the amendment. 3. He submitted that the amendment, far from changing the nature of the suit/proceeding, would help in complete adjudication of the point at issue and therefore, it would be appropriate to allow the amendment. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant opposite party no.2 submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarwatia Devi vs. Usha Devi, AIR 1984 Supreme Court, 346, the whole exercise is futile because even if it be assumed that the deceased had executed nomination in favour of the petitioner in respect of Group Saving Linked Insurance Scheme, the money payable under the policy/scheme cannot be said to be money payable to the petitioner. The submissions appear to be well founded. It would be useful to quote the following observations of their lordships: "A mere nomination made under Section 39 does not have the effect of conferring on the nominee any beneficial interest in the amount payable under the life insurance policy on the death of the assured. The nomination only indicates the hand which• is authorised to receive the amount, on the payment of which the insurer gets a valid discharge of its liability under the policy. The amount, however, can be claimed by the heirs of the assured in accordance with the law of succession governing them." 4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the question as to whether the petitioner is the owner of the money due under the Insurance Policy/scheme is not the issue in the present revision. The only point which is to be considered is whether the amendment should have been allowed or not. In my opinion, in the facts and circumstances, the question of amendment is of academic importance, for even if the amendment is allowed and the trial court records a finding to the effect that the deceased had executed nomination in favour of the petitioner, it would hardly serve any purpose because, as laid down by the Supreme Court, a nomination merely entitles the nominee to receive the money but does not make him owner thereof. The money has to go to the heirs according to law of Succession applicable to the parties. According to the Hindu Succession Act, read with Section 373 of the Indian Succession Act, the wife has the best claim and it is she who is entitled to Succession certificate. 5. The money has to go to the heirs according to law of Succession applicable to the parties. According to the Hindu Succession Act, read with Section 373 of the Indian Succession Act, the wife has the best claim and it is she who is entitled to Succession certificate. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the observations of this Court would virtually render the pending appeal redundant. I am afraid, that may be so, but according to me, I would be failing in my duty if I do not state the correct legal position for the guidance of the court below. 6. In the above view of the matter, I do not think, useful purpose would be served by allowing the amendment. 7. The civil revision is dismissed.