B. PRAKASH RAO, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri S. Agasthya Sarma, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri M. V. S. Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. ( 2 ) THIS appeal is at the instance of the contesting first respondent in the court below filed against the judgment dated 10-11-1997 in O. P. No. 241 of 1993, on the file of the ii Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad allowing the application filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein under section 372 of the Indian Succession Act seeking for grant of succession certificate in respect of the amounts shown in the application. ( 3 ) THE facts of the case are that one sri K. Veeraiah, who is the father of the petitioners in the court below, was an employee working as Supervisor in the postal and Telegraphic Department, deposited various amounts with the third respondent herein which is a Chit Fund company and which was to be refunded with interest at 15% p. a. As per the said deposits, they would mature from 01-02-1993 onwards. However, the mother of the respondents 1 and 2 died long back and their father Sri K. Veeraiah died on 14-10-1992 at Hyderabad. However, since late K. Veeraiah nominated the appellant herein, who is his brother for payment of the said amounts and stated that the respondents 1 and 2 who being the legal heirs are entitled to the same. However, the appellant herein is trying to appropriate the entire amounts by taking advantage of such nomination to which he is entitled to as per law. Hence, the said application has been filed seeking succession certificate in respect of the same amounts. ( 4 ) CONTESTING the claim of the respondents 1 and 2, the case of the appellant in the court below was that there is no dispute in regard to the relationship between the parties. However, since there was serious difference between the respondents 1 and 2 and their deceased father for the last more than 10 years, resulting they severed their connections inter se with their family and further the appellant alone looked after him and the respondents 1 and 2 never came to their father and virtually neglected him totally. Therefore, the deceased K. Veeraiah rightly nominated the appellant and thus it is he who is entitled to the amounts. Therefore, the deceased K. Veeraiah rightly nominated the appellant and thus it is he who is entitled to the amounts. It is further pointed out that in respect of the other properties, the deceased k. Veeraiah executed a Will in favour of one smt. P. Kanaka Uma Durga, who in fact looked after him during the period of his ailment. The respondents 1 and 2 never assisted their father nor taken care of him. Hence, they are not entitled to succession certificate in respect of the amounts. ( 5 ) ON these and other allegations as contained from out of the respective pleadings, the court below framed the following point for consideration: "whether the petitioners are entitled for the succession certificate in respect of the amounts claimed in the petition?" ( 6 ) DURING the course of enquiry, on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, P. Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-6 were marked. Similarly on behalf of the appellant, r. Ws. 1 to 4 were examined and Exs. B- to b-5 were marked. That apart, Exs. X-1 to x-14 were marked concerning the chit transaction. ( 7 ) CONSIDERING the entire evidence and material on record, the Court below allowed the application granting succession certificate in favour of the respondents 1 and 2, inter alia holding that it is the respondents who are entitled to succeed to the said amounts as Class I heirs under Hindu Law and mere nomination with the Chit Fund company would not either create any right in favour of the appellant nor deprive the rights of the respondents 1 and 2, who are entitled to succeed as per Law. ( 8 ) SRI S. Agasthya Sarma, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously contended that having regard to the nomination which is exclusive, the question of granting any succession certificate in favour of the respondents 1 and 2 does not arise and even the facts and circumstances of the case especially having regard to the total neglect on the part of the respondents 1 and 2, there is no justification for any such claim. ( 9 ) SRI M. V. S. Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents sought to repel the aforesaid contentions on the ground that as per Personnel Law, it is the respondents 1 and 2, who are entitled to succeed to the said amounts and therefore the certificate has to be granted in their favour and the appellant cannot rest his claim on the basis of mere nomination which does not create any right in his favour under the law. ( 10 ) DURING the course of arguments, the amended provisions under Part III of the banking Regulation Act, 1949 was also pressed into service which under Sec. 45-A contemplates similar such nominations for payment of depositors money. Even on a reading of the said provision, nothing can be made out to show that any such nomination would have any effect of exclusion of the persons who are entitled to under law of succession. ( 11 ) CONSIDERING these and other submissions, the only question which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether on the facts and circumstances the respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to the succession certificate in respect of the amounts deposited by the deceased father with the respondents 3 and 4? ( 12 ) THERE is no dispute to the basic facts that the deceased, who was the father of the respondents 1 and 2, was an employee with the Postal and Telegraphic Department and the mother of the respondents 1 and 2 died long back to the death of the father who died on 14-10-1992 at Hyderabad. There is no dispute in regard to the amounts deposited with the respondents 3 and 4 by the deceased, which would become matured by 01-02-1993 and it was carrying interest at the rate of 15% p. a. There is no dispute that the appellant was shown as nominee with the respondents 3 and 4. ( 13 ) THE case of the respondents 1 and 2 is to the effect that by taking advantage of such nomination, the appellant is trying to knock away the entire amounts to the detriment of the respondents who are entitled to such amounts under the Law as per Succession. ( 13 ) THE case of the respondents 1 and 2 is to the effect that by taking advantage of such nomination, the appellant is trying to knock away the entire amounts to the detriment of the respondents who are entitled to such amounts under the Law as per Succession. The main objection raised on behalf of the appellant in the Court below was on the basis of the nomination made by the deceased, which according to him is exclusive in nature and operation and further would exclude all other persons and therefore, it is he, who is entitled to receive the amounts. It is also pointed out that having regard to the fact that the respondents 1 and 2 never took care of their father and it was he and also another lady by name P. Kanaka Uma Durga, who looked after him in view of the differences between the deceased father and the respondents 1 and 2 and therefore, the deceased k. Veeraiah had rightly executed a Will in favour of Smt. P. Kanaka Uma Durga in respect of the other properties and made the due nomination in favour of the appellant. While considering the individual rights and entitlement of the parties, the Court below sought to place reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarbati Devi v. Usha devi whereunder the Apex Court while considering the provisions of the Insurance act, it was held that a mere nomination made under Section 39 of the said Act 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 authorized 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. This decision was sought to be distinguished on behalf of the appellant by placing reliance on the provisions of the Provident Fund Act to show that there is subtle distinction to the nomination as contemplated under the insurance Law with that of the Provident fund Act. This decision was sought to be distinguished on behalf of the appellant by placing reliance on the provisions of the Provident Fund Act to show that there is subtle distinction to the nomination as contemplated under the insurance Law with that of the Provident fund Act. Though under the Insurance Law, the nomination made by the insured does not vest the beneficial interest in the nominee and the nominations are subject to the law of succession whereas as per the provisions Section 10 (2) of the Provident fund Act, the amount standing to the credit of a member of the fund at the time of his death shall vest in the nominee. It was held that there is absolutely no difference in regard to the nature (and insurance) of nomination either under the Insurance Act or under the Provident Fund Act. Even otherwise, it was rightly held by the court below that in the present case where the amounts deposited with the Chit Fund company are concerned, the provisions of the Provident Fund Act have no application. By placing reliance on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, the same was sought to be extended in respect of the nomination made with the Chit Fund Authorities as well. Though an attempt was made even in this appeal by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant on the same lines as was sought to be done in the Court below to show that the nomination with the Chit Fund authorities totally stands apart from that of the Insurance Act or even under the provident Fund Act. However, no provision has been brought to our notice nor any decision has been cited across the Bar to draw any such subtle distinction to the nomination under the Insurance Act and the nomination made for any purpose stands on the same footing as pointed out by the Apex court in the aforesaid decision and there cannot be any exclusion of any persons who are entitled to succession under their respective personal Law. Even on the facts, no distinction is sought either in terms or the context of the nomination made with the Chit fund Authorities to that of the nomination as normally contemplated under the Insurance or the Provident Fund Act. Even on the facts, no distinction is sought either in terms or the context of the nomination made with the Chit fund Authorities to that of the nomination as normally contemplated under the Insurance or the Provident Fund Act. In the circumstances, it has to be held that the aforesaid principles as laid down by the apex Court would equally apply to the facts of this case and necessarily it has to be held that such mere nomination would not create any right in favour of the nominee as per the succession under Personal Law. In the circumstances, it has to be held that the court below was right in holding that the respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to succession and consequently for succession certificate as sought for. Accordingly, we do not find any merits in the above appeal. ( 14 ) IN the result, this Civil Miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs.