ORDER : The respondents herein applied for grant of succession certificate in respect of late Abyakta Ranjan Bhattacharjee, son of late Annada Ranjan Bhattacharjee, who admittedly was unmarried and died intestate. 2. Abyakta Ranjan Bhattacharjee had 6 brothers – i) Sri Achintya Ranjan Bhattacharjee, ii) Sri Adwaita Ranjan Bhattacharjee, iii) late Amrit Ranjan Bhattacharjee, iv) Sri Ashit Ranjan Bhattacharjee, v) Sri Sudha Ranjan Bhattacharjee and vi) Sri Ajit Ranjan Bhattacharjee. He also had one sister, late Indira Chakraborty. Therefore, the estate of Abyakta Ranjan Bhattacharjee was to be divided into 7 parts. One-seventh share would go to Sri Achintya Ranjan Bhattacharjee, one-seventh share would go to Sri Adwaita Ranjan Bhattacharjee, one-seventh share would jointly go to Smti. Ranu Bhattacharjee and Sri Anup Ranjan Bhattacharjee, legal heirs of late Amrit Ranjan Bhattacharjee. One-seventh share would jointly go to Smti. Sati Rani Bhattacharjee, Sri Sanjib Bhattacharjee, Sri Chiranjib Bhattacharjee being legal heirs of late Ashit Ranjan Bhattacharjee. One-seventh share would go to Smt. Bina Bhattacharjee legal heir of late Sudha Ranjan Bhattacharjee, one-seventh share would jointly go to Smti. Anita Chakraborty, Smti. Sikha Chakraborty and Sri Basudeb Chakraborty being legal heirs of late Indira Chakraborty and one-seventh share would jointly go to Smti. Uma Bhattacharjee, Smti. Bithika Bhattacharjee, Sri Sanjay Bhattacharjee, Smti. Mallika Bhattacharjee, Sri Abhoy Bhattacharjee and Smti. Juthika Bhattacharjee being legal heirs of late Ajit Ranjan Bhattacharjee. 3. There is no Will set up by any party. However, Smti. Mallika Bhattacharjee, daughter of late Ajit Ranjan Bhattacharjee, a brother of the deceased was the nominee mentioned in the bank accounts of the deceased Abyakta Ranjan Bhattacharjee. Other than the heirs of late Ajit Ranjan Bhattacharjee, all the other family members jointly filed a petition for grant of succession certificate. In this petition for grant of succession certificate, Smti. Uma Bhattacharjee and her children were also shown to be co-heirs in respect of the estate of late Sri Abyakta Ranjan Bhattacharjee. The dispute is only with regard to two bank accounts of the deceased. Smti. Mallika Bhattacharjee claims that she is entitled to withdraw the amount from the bank. That may be true, but it is well settled law that a nominee is only entitled to withdraw the amount, but the nominee has to ensure that payment is made to all the legal heirs. Smti. Mallika Bhattacharjee claims that she is entitled to withdraw the amount from the bank. That may be true, but it is well settled law that a nominee is only entitled to withdraw the amount, but the nominee has to ensure that payment is made to all the legal heirs. It is the responsibility of the nominee to ensure that the amount received by the nominee is divided amongst the legal heirs as per their respective shares. 4. In AIR 1984 SC 346 , Smt. Sarbati Devi and another vs. Smt. Usha Devi, the Apex Court was interpreting Section 39 of the Insurance Act, which reads as follows:- "39. Nomination by policy-holder.- (1) The holder of a policy of life insurance on his own life may, when effecting the policy or at any time before the policy matures for payment, nominate the person or persons to whom the money secured by the policy shall be paid in the event of his death: Provided that where any nominee is a minor, it shall be lawful for the policy-holder to appoint in the prescribed manner any person to receive the money secured by the policy in the event of his death during the minority of the nominee. (2) Any such nomination in order to be effectual shall unless it is incorporated in the text of the policy itself, be made by an endorsement on the policy communicated to the insurer and registered by him in the records relating to the policy and any such nomination may at any time before the policy matures for payment be cancelled or changed by an endorsement, or a further endorsement or a will, as the case may be, but unless notice in writing of any such cancellation or change has been delivered to the insurer, the insurer shall not be liable for any payment under the policy made bona fide by him to a nominee mentioned in the text of the policy or registered in records of the insurer. (3) The insurer shall furnish to the policy-holder a written acknowledgement of having registered a nomination or a cancellation or change thereof, and may charge a fee not exceeding one rupee for registering such cancellation or change. (4) A transfer or assignment of a policy made in accordance with sec. (3) The insurer shall furnish to the policy-holder a written acknowledgement of having registered a nomination or a cancellation or change thereof, and may charge a fee not exceeding one rupee for registering such cancellation or change. (4) A transfer or assignment of a policy made in accordance with sec. 38 shall automatically cancel a nomination: Provided that the assignment of a policy to the insurer who bears the risk on the policy at the time of the assignment, in consideration of a loan granted by that insurer on the security of the policy within its surrender value, or its reassignment on repayment of the loan shall not cancel a nomination, but shall affect the rights of the nominee only to the extent of the insurer's interest in the policy. (5) Where the policy matures for payment during the lifetime of the person whose life is insured or where the nominee or, if there are more nominees than one, all the nominees die before the policy matures for payment, the amount secured by the policy shall be payable to the policy-holder or his heirs or legal representatives or the holder of a succession certificate, as the case may be. (6) Where the nominee or if there are more nominees than one, a nominee or nominees survive the person whose life is insured, the amount secured by the policy shall be payable to such survivor or survivors. (7) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any policy of life insurance to which sec. 6 of the Married Women's Property Act, 1874 applies or has at any time applied : Provided that where a nomination made whether before or after the commencement of the Insurance (Amendment) Act, 1946, in favour of the wife of the person who has insured his life or of his wife and children or any of them is expressed, whether or not on the face of the policy, as being made under this section the said section 6 shall be deemed not to apply or not to have applied to the policy." 5. After analyzing the entire Section 39, the Apex Court held as follows:- “But the summary of the relevant provisions of section 39 given above establishes clearly that the 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. If that is so, on the death of the policy holder the amount payable under the policy becomes part of his estate which is governed by the law of succession applicable to him. Such succession may be testamentary or intestate. There is no warrant for the position that section 39 of the Act operates as a third kind of succession which is styled as a 'statutory testament' in paragraph 16 of the decision of the Delhi High Court in Mrs. Uma Sehgal's case (AIR 1982 Delhi 36) (supra). If section 39 of the Act is contrasted with section 38 of the Act which provides for transfer or assignment of the rights under a policy, the tenuous character of the right of a nominee would become more pronounced. It is difficult to hold that section 39 of the Act was intended to act as a third mode of succession provided by the statute. The provision in sub-section (6) of Section 39 which says that the amount shall be payable to the nominee or nominees does not mean that the amount shall belong to the nominee or nominees. We have to bear in mind here the special care which law and judicial precedents take in the matter of execution and proof of wills which have the effect of diverting the estate from the ordinary course of intestate succession and that the rigour of the rules governing the testamentary succession is not relaxed even where wills are registered.” 6. The Apex Court, thereafter, considered the conflicting views of the various High Courts and finally held as follows:- “We approve the views expressed by the other High Courts on the meaning of section 39 of the Act and hold that a 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 authorised 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.” 7. Thereafter, in AIR 2000 SC 2747 , Vishin N. Khanchandani and another vs. Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani and another, the Apex Court was dealing with a case where Section 6, 7 and 8 of the Government Savings Certificate Act was under consideration. 8. The Apex Court relying upon the earlier Judgment held as follows:- “Any amount paid to the nominee after valid deductions becomes the estate of the deceased. Such an estate devolves upon all persons who are entitled to succession under law, custom or testament of the deceased-holder. In other words, the law laid down by this Court in Sarbati Devi’s Case, AIR 1984 SC 346 , holds field and is equally applicable to the nominee becoming entitled to the payment of the amount on account of national savings certificates received by him under Section 6 read with Section 7 of the Act who in turn is liable to return the amount to those, in whose favour law creates beneficial interest, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act.” 9. In the present case, the matter is covered by Section 45ZA of the banking Regulation Act, which reads as follows:- “45ZA. Nomination for payment of depositors' money.- (1) Where a deposit is held by a banking company to the credit of one or more persons, the depositor or, as the case may be, all the depositors together, may nominate, in the prescribed manner, one person to whom in the event of the death of the sole depositor or the death of all the depositors, the amount of deposit may be returned by the banking company. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any disposition, whether testamentary or otherwise, in respect of such deposit, where a nomination made in the prescribed manner purports to confer on any person the right to receive the amount of deposit from the banking company, the nominee shall, on the death of the sole depositor or, as the case may be, on the death of all the depositors, become entitled to all the rights of the sole depositor or, as the case may be, of the depositors, in relation to such deposit to the exclusion of all other persons, unless the nomination is varied or cancelled in the prescribed manner. (3) Where the nominee is a minor, it shall be lawful for the depositor making the nomination to appoint in the prescribed manner any person to receive the amount of deposit in the event of his death during the minority of the nominee. (4) Payment by a banking company in accordance with the provisions of this section shall constitute a full discharge to the banking company of its liability in respect of the deposit: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect the right or claim which any person may have against the person to whom any payment is made under this section. 10. The language of Section 45ZA is virtually identical to the language of the other two acts and there is no material difference. All these acts provide that payment by the holder of the money to the nominee will discharge the holder of the money from any liability, but this does not in any way take away the rights of the natural legal heirs. As held by the Apex Court, the property in the hands of the nominee continues to remain the estate of the deceased and must be distributed as per the law of succession. If there is a Will then the nominee is duty bound to give the property to the person(s) entitled under the Will. If there is no Will then the nominee must distribute the property of the deceased amongst the legal heirs as per the laws of succession governing the said family. 11. Nomination is different from bequeathing property. If there is a Will then the nominee is duty bound to give the property to the person(s) entitled under the Will. If there is no Will then the nominee must distribute the property of the deceased amongst the legal heirs as per the laws of succession governing the said family. 11. Nomination is different from bequeathing property. If a person wants to give his property to the person he has nominated he should make a Will with regard to the property in his favour. The law of succession recognizes only a bequest by way of Will as a means of transferring the property whether movable or immovable and if there is no Will then the natural law of succession will apply. In the present case as held by me above, there are 7 sets of legal heirs. Each set of legal heirs is only entitled to one-seventh share. The nominee Smti. Mallika Bhattacharjee along with her mother and 4 siblings is entitled to joint one-seventh share. Therefore the share of Smti. Mallika Bhattacharjee and the property of the deceased would only be 1/42 share. She cannot claim anything more than that. 12. However, as rightly contended by Mr. Saha, learned counsel that Smti. Mallika Bhattacharjee is entitled to withdraw the entire amount, but she has to ensure that this amount is paid to all the claimants in equal shares. It is stated by Mr. Saha, learned counsel that the intention of Smti. Mallika Bhattacharjee is not to take away the money, but she wants to pay the money to all the heirs. This litigation has been going on between the family members since 2006 and 9 years have elapsed. The application for grant of succession certificate was filed in the year 2006. The other claimants, who have filed the application for succession certificate, filed it on the apprehension that Smti. Mallika Bhattacharjee being the nominee would grab the amount. There is lack of trust between the family members. 13. The application for grant of succession certificate was filed in the year 2006. The other claimants, who have filed the application for succession certificate, filed it on the apprehension that Smti. Mallika Bhattacharjee being the nominee would grab the amount. There is lack of trust between the family members. 13. Therefore exercising powers vested in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I feel that an end can be brought to this entire unfortunate litigation between the close family members by giving the following directions to protect the interest of all the legal heirs and ensuring that all the legal heirs get the money without any unnecessary delay:- i) The Branch Manager, United Bank of India, Ramnagar Branch, Agartala as well as the Branch Manager, United Bank of India, Battala, Agartala are directed to remit the entire amount due on account of savings bank account No. 8606 and 834282 along with interest accrued thereupon in the Registry of this Court within one month from today. (ii) Thereafter, the Registrar General will ensure that the money payable to each of the heirs as per their respective shares mentioned hereinabove is transmitted directly to the bank account of each of the heirs on their furnishing details of the bank account along with first page of the copy of the pass book in the Registry of this Court within one month from today. 14. In view of the order which I have passed nothing survives either in this case or in the succession application and both are accordingly disposed of. 15. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Trial Court who shall dispose of the application for grant of succession certificate in view of the order passed in this petition. 16. If any party has any grievance with regard to the amount deposited by the bank it can raise such dispute directly with the bank.