Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 488 (RAJ)

Sharifan Bano v. Jaitoon Bano

2006-02-14

N.P.GUPTA, S.N.JHA

body2006
Judgment 1. This special appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.04.2005 in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 763/2005 (Defect) dismissing the appeal of the appellant. 2. The dispute relates to exclusive claim of the appellant in the amount of compensation. 3. Facts of the case are that the husband of the appellant, Mohd. Ishaq, was employed in Saudi Arabia. He died in harness in a motor accident on 19.03.1997. The Saudi Government granted compensation of Rs. 12,85,347/-. The amount was forwarded to the Government of India through the Indian Embassy for payment to his heirs. On receipt the amount was made over to the District Collector, Nagaur on 25.03.2002 for payment. The case of the appellant is that by letter dated 30.05.2002 the District Collector directed her to submit succession certificate but the letter fell into the hands of Respondent No. 1 Jaitoon Bano, mother of Mohd. Ishaq, who filed application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act in the Court of District Judge, Nagaur for grant of succession certificate. Notice was issued to the appellant if that case. She objected to the grant of the certificate to Respondent No. 1 but over-rulling her objection the District Judge issued succession certificate in favour of not only the appellant, but also Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 Rukhsana, daughter of Mohd. Ishaq. While the appellant was held entitled to only 1/8 share, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were allowed 1/6 and ½ shares, respectively. In actual terms, the appellant was held entitled to Rs. 2,02,950/ -while Respondent No. 1 was held entitled to Rs. 2,70,599/-and Respondent No. 2 was held entitled to Rs. 8,11,798/-. The apportionment was made as per personal law of the parties. Case of the appellant is that being the nominee she is entitled to the entire amount. 4. The point is well settled by the decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Sarbati Davi & Anr. vs. Smt. Usha Devi, 1984 (1) SCC 424 . 8,11,798/-. The apportionment was made as per personal law of the parties. Case of the appellant is that being the nominee she is entitled to the entire amount. 4. The point is well settled by the decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Sarbati Davi & Anr. vs. Smt. Usha Devi, 1984 (1) SCC 424 . While considering the rights of the nominee in the context of Section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938 in the amount received by him under a policy to the exclusion of other heirs of the policy holder, the Supreme Court held that nomination does not confer any beneficial interest in the amount, it merely entitles him to receive the amount, and when the amount is paid into the hands of the nominee the liability of the insurer gets discharged, and the amount becomes part of the estate of the policy holder governed by the law of succession applicable to him. Section 39 does not operate as a kind of succession and the nominee cannot be treated as being equivalent to an heir or legatee. The amount is to be paid to the heirs of the assured in accordance with law of succession governing the parties. A similar view was expressed in Shri Vishin N. Khanchandari & Anr. vs. Vidya Lachmandass Khanchandani, 2000 (6) SCC 724 , which was a case of Savings Certificate. Referring to the case of Sarbati Devi vs. Usha Devi (Supra), and other cases, the Supreme Court held that nominee is entitled to receive the sum due on the Savings Certificate but he retains the same on behalf of persons entitled to it under the relevant law of succession applicable in the case. 5. The instant case is one of compensation but we are of the view that the principle laid down in Sarbati Devi Vishin N. Khanchandari would be applicable to cases of compensation too. Compensation is part of the estate of the deceased and the same must devolve on various heirs in accordance with the personal law of the parties. That being the legal position, the apportionment of claim as mentioned above holding the appellant to be entitled to 1/8th share amounting to Rs. 2,02,950/-as per the Mohammedan law of succession appears to be in accordance with law. The learned Single Judge, therefore, did not commit any error in dismissing the appeal of the appellant. 6. That being the legal position, the apportionment of claim as mentioned above holding the appellant to be entitled to 1/8th share amounting to Rs. 2,02,950/-as per the Mohammedan law of succession appears to be in accordance with law. The learned Single Judge, therefore, did not commit any error in dismissing the appeal of the appellant. 6. In the result the appeal is dismissed.