Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 758 (PNJ)

Amar Singh v. Shashi Bala

2002-08-05

V.M.JAIN

body2002
ORDER V.M. Jain, J. - This regular second appeal has been filed by Amar Singh, defendant against the judgments and decrees of the courts below, whereby suit filed by Smt. Shashi Bala, plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court and the appeal filed by Amar Singh, defendant was dismissed by the learned Additional Distt. Judge. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that Smt. Shashi Bala plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, to the effect that the plaintiff was the legal heir of Ranbir Singh, deceased, being his widow and was entitled to receive the amounts due under the insurance policies for Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 25,000/-, respectively, from defendants 2 and 3 and also sought a decree for mandatory injunction directing defendants 2 and 3 to pay the insurance amount to the plaintiff, in respect of two policies in the name of Ranbir Singh, deceased, husband of the plaintiff. It was alleged that Ranbir Singh, husband of the plaintiff, died on 17.7.1980 and that defendant No. 1 Amar Singh, was father of Ranbir Singh, deceased. It was alleged that Ranbir Singh, deceased had taken two Life Insurance policies in his name for Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- respectively and that the plaintiff, being the widow and the mother of Ranbir Singh, deceased were entitled to receive the amount of insurance policies from the defendants 2 and 3. It was alleged that defendant No. 1 Amar Singh tried to get the payment of these two policies. It was alleged that defendants 2 and 3 had refused to admit the claim of the plaintiff and hence the plaintiff had sought decree for declaration that she being the legal heir of Ranbir Singh was entitled to receive the insurance amount in respect of the said policies. In the written statement filed by defendants 2 and 3 (Life Insurance Corporation), it was alleged that Ranbir Singh, deceased had taken the aforesaid policies and in the said policies the defendant No. 1 Amar Singh was appointed as a nominee. However, it was alleged that they would comply with the orders of the court. Defendant No. 1 Amar Singh, in his written statement, alleged that he being the nominee of the deceased was entitled to claim the entire amount under the insurance policies and that the plaintiff had no right or claim to the insurance amount. 3. Various issues were framed. Defendant No. 1 Amar Singh, in his written statement, alleged that he being the nominee of the deceased was entitled to claim the entire amount under the insurance policies and that the plaintiff had no right or claim to the insurance amount. 3. Various issues were framed. After hearing both sides, learned trial Court decreed suit of the plaintiff, to the effect that Smt. Shashi Bala, plaintiff and Smt. Kaushalya Devi (mother) were the legal heirs of Ranbir Singh, deceased and that they were entitled to inherit the property left by him in equal shares. Resultantly, a decree for declaration was passed to the effect that the plaintiff was entitled to receive one half of the amount due under the policies of insurance and defendants 2 and 3 were directed not to pay the said amount under the said insurance policies to Amar Singh, defendant. Aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below, Amar Singh, defendant filed appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Addl. Distt. Judge, upholding the findings of the learned trial Court. Aggrieved against the same, Amar Singh, defendant filed the present regular second appeal in this Court. 4. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, in my opinion, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. The only claim of defendant No. 1-appellant, in respect of the amount payable under the insurance policies, was on the basis of the fact that he was nominated as a nominee by Ranbir Singh, deceased in the said insurance policies. In Smt. Sarbati Devi and another v. Smt. Usha Devi, AIR 1984 SC 346, it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that mere nomination made under Section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938 did 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. It was further held that 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. It was further held that the amount, however, can be claimed by the heirs of the assured in accordance with the law of succession governing them. It was further held that the amount, however, can be claimed by the heirs of the assured in accordance with the law of succession governing them. It was further held that policy holder continues to hold interest in the policy during his lifetime and the nominee acquires no sort of interest in the policy during the lifetime of the policy holder. It was further held that on the death of policy holder, the amount payable under the policy becomes part of his estate which is governed by the law of succession applicable to him. The Honble Supreme Court had considered the provisions of Section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938, while laying down the aforesaid law in respect of right of a nominee. It was held that the language of Section 39 of the said Act, is not capable of altering the course of succession under law. 5. In view of the law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in Smt. Sarbati Devis case (supra), in my opinion, no fault could be found with the findings of the courts below. Accordingly, I affirm the findings of the courts below in this regard. For the reasons recorded above, finding no merit in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.