JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant has challenged the order dated 25.7.2006 passed by the District Judge, Bundi whereby an application moved by the respondent No.1 for issuance of succession certificate under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Act', for short) was passed in favour of the respondent-applicant before this Court. 2. The brief facts of the case are that one Ganga Ram died on 13.3.1998. The respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 372 of the Act wherein inter alia she claimed that she is the only daughter and, thus the successor of deceased Ganga Ram. She further claimed that Ganga Ram had deposited Rs.22,000/- in the insurance account, being Insurance Certificate No.230939. She further alleged that the deceased executed a will dated 4.12.1992 in her favour. Hence, the succession certificate should be issued in her favour for receiving the insurance amount of Rs.22,000/-. 3. The appellants filed a reply to the said application and denied the averments made by the respondent No.1. We further claimed that he is the brother of the deceased. Moreover, the deceased had adopted him 25 years ago. Moreover, the deceased had nominated him as a nominee in his service book. Therefore, he is entitled for the issuance of the succession certificate with regard to Rs. 22,000/-. However, after hearing both the parties, the learned Judge vide order dated 25.7.2006 has issued a succession certificate in favour of the respondent No.1. Hence, this appeal before this Court. 4. The issue of right of a nominee to receive the deposited amount is no longer resintegra after the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vishn N. Khanchandani & Anr. v. Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani & Anr., (2000) 6 SCC 724 . According to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a nominee does have the right to receive the money but he cannot displace the legal heirs and holds the amount for the legal heirs. The same view has been expressed by this Court in the case of Vishwanath @ Kurada v. Savitra Devi, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 426 of 1998 . Therefore, the appellant has the right to receive Rs.22,000/- deposited in the form of Insurance Certificate No.230939 in the insurance account of the deceased. The same view has been expressed by this Court in the case of Vishwanath @ Kurada v. Savitra Devi, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 426 of 1998 . Therefore, the appellant has the right to receive Rs.22,000/- deposited in the form of Insurance Certificate No.230939 in the insurance account of the deceased. Further, he shall hold the money for the benefit of respondent No.1, she being the daughter of the natural successor of the deceased Ganga Ram. Since the appellant has not declared as adopted son of deceased Ganga Ram by a competent civil court, we are not in a position to express our opinion on the said issue, till the appellant is so declared by the Civil Court. The respondent No.1 is the rightful heir to the amount left by the deceased Ganga Ram. Therefore, while allowing this appeal, we set aside the order dated 25.7.2006 but direct the appellant to left the entire amount including interest thereupon for the respondent applicant No.1 within one month of having the receipt of the said amount from the Insurance Company. With these observations, this appeal is allowed.Appeal allowed with above directions. *******