Judgment Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. The present appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), has been preferred against an order dated 5.12.2007 passed in Succession Case No. 76 of 2005, whereby, while allowing Succession Case, Sri Ram Shreshtha Roy, learned 1st Additional District Judge, Patna, has directed for issuance of Succession Certificate in favour of the applicant / respondent no. 1 in accordance with provisions contained in Section 377 of the Act. 2. Short fact of the case is that on 5.7.2005, respondent no. 1 filed an application for grant of succession certificate in the court of District Judge, Patna, which was registered as Succession Case No. 76 of 2005 in his favour in respect of estate of Late Sanjeev Kumar, described in Schedule I of the petition i.e. insurance policy bearing certificate no. 01477084/102030-187485 standing in the name of Late Sanjeev Kumar for an amount of Rs. 1,00000/-procured from National Insurance Co. Ltd. under Golden Trust Financial Service, Branch - Buddha Marg, Patna. The respondent no. 1/ applicant, had arrayed estate of Late Sanjeev Kumar, as opposite party no. 1, widow of Late Sanjeev Kumar as opposite party no. 2 (who is appellant in this appeal), father and mother of applicant/ Respondent No. 1 as opposite party no. 3 & 4. Golden Trust Financial Service & National Insurance Co. Ltd. were arrayed as opposite party no. 5 & 6. It was disclosed by the applicant / Respondent No. 1 before the court below that his own brother deceased Sanjeev Kumar had taken an insurance policy of Rs. 1,00000/- on 8.7.2002. Marriage of Sanjeev Kumar was solemnized with appellant (Smt. Rashmi Bharti) on 24.6.2002, whereas, while taking insurance policy on 8.7. 2002 i.e. after the marriage of Sanjeev Kumar with appellant (Rashmi Bharti), the applicants (Respondent No. 1) name was given as nominee in the insurance policy. Subsequently, Sanjeev Kumar was murdered. It was disclosed by the applicant (Respondent No. 1) before the court below that his brother was killed on 3.4.2003. Since the applicant (Respondent No. 1) was nominee in the said policy he approached the respondent no. 5 / Golden Trust Financial Service for payment of the insurance amount but insurance company demanded Succession Certificate. Subsequently, Sanjeev Kumar was murdered. It was disclosed by the applicant (Respondent No. 1) before the court below that his brother was killed on 3.4.2003. Since the applicant (Respondent No. 1) was nominee in the said policy he approached the respondent no. 5 / Golden Trust Financial Service for payment of the insurance amount but insurance company demanded Succession Certificate. Thereafter, he filed an application for grant of succession certificate which was numbered as Succession Case No. 76 of 2005 in respect of insurance policy as indicated above. 3. Before the court below respondent no. 3 and 4 i.e. father and mother appeared and filed rejoinder and they supported the claim for grant of succession certificate in favour of the applicant / Respondent No. 1. The appellant only raised an objection by filing a written statement. In the written statement the appellant disclosed that dispute in between the appellant and respondent no. 1 was already settled vide Succession Case No. 123 of 2004 which was earlier filed by the appellant ( Rashmi Bharti ). After filing of the said certificate succession case i.e. Succession Case No. 123 of 2004, due to intervention of well wishers of both the sides dispute was settled outside the court. It was further claimed that being legally married wife of Late Sanjeev Kumar, she had got statutory right to inherit in toto the estate of Sanjeev Kumar to the exclusion of all other relatives of Late Sanjeev Kumar. Besides this, the appellant further asserted that after the death of her husband Late Sanjeev Kumar, the Respondent No. 1 had also obtained Rs. 50,000/- from the account of Late Sanjeev Kumar lying in Punjab National Bank. However, before the court below except filing written statement and subsequent petition filed on behalf of appellant (Rashmi Bharti) under Order VII Rule II of the CPC, she did not adduce any evidence. After filing of the written statement by the appellant the Respondent No. 1 filed rejoinder to the written statement of the appellant, wherein, the Respondent No. 1 took a stand that the appellant herself had accepted that subsequent to death of her husband Late Sanjeev Kumar she had married with one Arun Sao, which was evident from the verification made by the appellant in her written statement. Before the court below four witnesses were examined on behalf of the applicant (Respondent No. 1). The respondent no. Before the court below four witnesses were examined on behalf of the applicant (Respondent No. 1). The respondent no. 3 was examined as witness no. 1 on behalf of opposite party. By filing an affidavit the respondent no. 3 asserted that the applicant / Respondent No. 1 was made nominee by the deceased and he was only entitled to get the policy amount. After hearing the parties and considering the materials available on record, the learned 1st Additional District Judge allowed the application and directed for issuance of succession certificate in favour of the applicant / Respondent No. 1. 4. Aggrieved with the order dated 5.12.2007 passed in Succession Case No. 76 of 2005, the present appeal has been preferred. 5. Sri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that merely on the ground that applicant / Respondent No. 1 was made nominee in the insurance policy by Late Sanjeev Kumar, he was not authorized to utilize the amount of insurance policy. It was submitted that the applicant/ Respondent No. 1 was only nominated by her Late husband to get the amount from the insurance company, whereas, the appellant as Class I heir was entitled to get the entire amount of the insurance policy. He submits that law in respect of nominee has already been settled by the Apex Court in a case reported in AIR 1984 SC 346 (Smt. Sarbati Devi and another v. Smt. Usha Devi). It was submitted that the view expressed in Sarbati Devi’s case has recently been approved by the Apex Court in a case reported in 2010 (2) PLJR SC 1 (Shipra Sengupta vs Mridul Sengupta & ors.). Accordingly, it was submitted that being nominee in the insurance policy the applicant / Respondent No. 1 was not authorized to get succession certificate issued in his favour in respect of insurance amount. He further submits that even though the appellant solemnized second marriage, she being widow of Late Sanjeev Kumar, was entitled to inherit the property of Late Sanjeev Kumar. He has argued that a widow is treated as Class I heir and in accordance with provisions contained in Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, she is entitled to get entire property of the deceased inherited. He has argued that a widow is treated as Class I heir and in accordance with provisions contained in Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, she is entitled to get entire property of the deceased inherited. He submits that right of widow to inherit property of her deceased husband even after her re-marriage has been approved by the Apex Court in a case reported in AIR 2008 SC 1467 [Cherotte Sugathan (D) by L.Rs. & Ors. v. Cherotte Bharathi & Ors.]. On aforesaid grounds it has been prayed to set aside the order dated 5.12.2007 passed by learned 1st Additional District Judge, Patna, in Succession Case No. 76 of 2005. 6. Sri Ramakant Sharma, learned senior counsel, while opposing the prayer of the appellant, has argued that the appellant is not entitled to maintain the present appeal. He has raised this objection mainly on the ground that prior to filing of the present succession case the appellant herself had filed a succession case vide Succession Case No. 123 of 2004 in respect of properties of Late Sanjeev Kumar. He submits that after filing of the said succession case the dispute in between the parties was settled outside the court due to intervention of well wishers and imminent persons of the society. A Panchnama was prepared wherein it was accepted by the present appellant that if certain amount is paid she shall withdraw the succession case. In this case a counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of respondent no. 1. Sri Sharma has drawn my attention to Annexure “A” to the counter affidavit i.e. a photo copy of Panchnama wherein it was indicated that the father of respondent no. 1 i.e. respondent no. 3 (Badri Sao) will pay Rs. 23,000/- to the appellant. Thereafter, the case will be disposed of. Sri Sharma has further referred to Annexure “B” to the counter affidavit which is a photo copy of certified copy of an order dated 31.01.2005, whereby, on compromise, the Succession Case No. 123 of 2004 was withdrawn. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 has also drawn my attention to Annexure “C” to the counter affidavit i.e. a compromise petition. Sri Sharma has further referred to Annexure “B” to the counter affidavit which is a photo copy of certified copy of an order dated 31.01.2005, whereby, on compromise, the Succession Case No. 123 of 2004 was withdrawn. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 has also drawn my attention to Annexure “C” to the counter affidavit i.e. a compromise petition. He submits that once after accepting certain amount the appellant herself had withdrawn the succession case i.e. Succession Case No. 123 of 2004, which was filed by the appellant, at subsequent stage, she was not entitled to oppose interest of the respondent no. 1 in the property of deceased. He further submits that even though the appellant was married with own brother of respondent no. 1 namely Late Sanjeev Kumar on 24.6.2002, thereafter, on 8.7.2002, while his brother had taken the said insurance policy, had nominated the respondent no. 1 as nominee in the said insurance policy. Moreover, since subsequently the appellant had solemnized second marriage, which was admitted by appellant herself before the court below and also before this Court, her right in the property of her deceased husband had instantaneously forfeited. Thereafter, she was not entitled to claim anything in the property of deceased Sanjeev Kumar. On aforesaid grounds it was prayed to dismiss the appeal. 7. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. It is not in dispute that only being nominee in the policy taken by the deceased Sanjeev Kumar, the respondent no. 1 was not entitled to claim succession certificate in his favour in respect of insurance policy of deceased Sanjeev Kumar. Only on the basis of being nominee he was not entitled to claim. The issue regarding the right of a nominee is no longer res integra. It has already been settled in Sarbati Devi Case (Supra). It would be better to refer relevant portion of paragraph no. 12 of the said judgment, which is quoted hereinbelow:- “……………..mere nomination made under Section 39 of the 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 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.” 8. In this case it is not in dispute that the appellant after the death of her husband had remarried, and as such, she had forfeited her right to claim any interest in the property of her deceased husband. Of-course, learned counsel for the appellant has heavily relied on AIR 2008 SC 1467 [Cherotte Sugathan (D) by L.Rs. & Ors. v. Cherotte Bharathi & Ors.], but after going through the said judgment, the court is of the opinion that law is otherwise. For just decision in the matter, it would be relevant to refer paragraph no. 15 of Cherotte Sugathan Case (Supra), which is quoted hereinbelow:- “15. Yet again this Court, in Velamuri Venkata Sivaprasad (Dead) by L.Rs. v. Kothuri Venkateswarlu (Dead) by L.Rs. & Ors. [ (2000) 2 SCC 139 ], held: “52. Incidentally, Section 24 of the Succession Act of 1956 placed certain restrictions on certain specified widows in the event of there being a re-marriage; while it is true that the section speaks of a pre-deceased son or son of a pre-deceased son but this in our view is a reflection of the Shastric law on to the statute. The Act of 1956 in terms of Section 8 permits the widow of a Hindu male to inherit simultaneously with the son, daughter and other heirs specified in Class I of the Schedule. As a matter of fact she takes her share absolutely and not the widow’s estate only in terms of Section 14. Re-marriage of a widow stands legalized by reason of the incorporation of the Act of 1956 but on her re-marriage she forfeits the right to obtain any benefit from out of her deceased husband’s estate and Section 2 of the Act of 1856 as noticed above is very specific that the estate in that event would pass on to the next heir of her deceased husband as if she were dead. Incidentally, the Act of 1856 does not stand abrogated or repealed by the Succession Act of 1956 and it is only by Act 24 of 1983 that the Act stands repealed. Incidentally, the Act of 1856 does not stand abrogated or repealed by the Succession Act of 1956 and it is only by Act 24 of 1983 that the Act stands repealed. As such the Act of 1856 had its fullest application in the contextual facts in 1956 when Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act was relied upon by Defendant 1.” We respectfully agree with the said view.” 9. In view of aforesaid judgment, the court is of the opinion that submission made by learned counsel for the appellant is not sustainable in the eye of law. Moreover, the appellant herself had initially filed succession case vide Succession Case No. 123 of 2004, and thereafter, she agreed to withdraw the said case after accepting certain amount. This fact regarding compromise in between the parties was admitted by the appellant in her written statement filed before the court below. Once after compromise she had withdrawn the succession case, at subsequent stage, the appellant shall not be entitled to claim any succession right in the property of her husband (deceased), that too, after being remarried. 10. After going through the impugned order, lower court records and entire materials, the court is of the opinion that learned 1st Additional District Judge has rightly allowed the petition filed by respondent no. 1 and directed for issuance of succession certificate in his favour. The impugned order requires no interference. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed without any cost.