Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 2106 (RAJ)

Sheela Devi v. Shikha Upadhyay

2021-11-11

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

body2021
ORDER 1. The present appeal arises out of the order passed by the learned District Judge, Bharatpur. On an application dated 10.08.2016 on an application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1985 whereby he has held that the gratuity amount liable to be released on account of death of Sushil Kumar Sharma would be divided as per the Succession Act amongst the four successor namely mother, wife and two daughters equally. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-mother submits that as her deceased son had only nominated her for receiving the gratuity amount, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bharatpur has thus erred in deciding the application by dividing the gratuity amount amongst the four inheritors/successors on the basis of Succession Act. Learned counsel submits that the provisions of Succession Act would have no application where there is already a nominee. He submits that nomination would amount to a will of the concerned person who nominates an individual to be paid his gratuity amount after his death. No other persons can have a claim thereto and the provisions of Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1985 would have no application. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the wife and the two daughters submit that so far as the provision is concerned she has rightly been given 1/4th share of the gratuity and the wife and the two daughters cannot be ousted from their claim to receive part of the gratuity amount. Learned counsel further submits that so far as the provisions of Succession Act are concerned, they would have an application in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarbati Devi and Anr. Vs. Usha Devi reported in AIR 1984 SC 346 and the subsequent judgment in the case of Vishin N. Khanchandani and Anr. Vs. Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani and Anr. reported in (2000) 6 SCC 724 and again followed in the case of Ram Chander Talwar and Anr. Vs. Devender Kumar Talwar and Ors. reported in (2010) 10 SCC 671 . 4. I have considered the submissions. 5. In Sarbati Devi (supra), the Apex Court held as under:- '12. Vs. Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani and Anr. reported in (2000) 6 SCC 724 and again followed in the case of Ram Chander Talwar and Anr. Vs. Devender Kumar Talwar and Ors. reported in (2010) 10 SCC 671 . 4. I have considered the submissions. 5. In Sarbati Devi (supra), the Apex Court held as under:- '12. We approve the view 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.' 6. Again the matter came up before the Supreme Court in the case of Vishin N. Khanchandani (supra) and the Apex Court after considering the submissions and the judgments passed by various High Courts held as under:- '13. In the light of what has been noticed hereinabove, it is apparent that though language and phraseology of Section 6 of the Act is different from the one used in Section 39 of the Insurance Act, yet, the effect of both the provisions is the same. The Act only makes the provisions regarding avoiding delay and expense in making the payment of the amount of the National Savings Certificates, to the nominee of holder, which has been considered to be beneficial both for the holder as also for the post office. 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. 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 case holds the 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 the law creates a beneficial interest, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act. 14. Under the circumstances, this appeal is allowed with a direction that the succession certificates shall be issued in favour of the respondents in respect of debts detailed in Annexures A and B to the application filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane subject to their payment of necessary court fees and estate duty certificate. The respondents would, however, not be entitled to directly receive the amounts payable on account of debts payable under National Savings Certificates at Sl. Nos.17 to 26 in Annexure A and Sl. Nos.1 to 4 in Annexure B. The appellants are held entitled to receive the sum due on the aforesaid National Savings Certificates in which they are the nominees upon furnishing the undertaking in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 8 to the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane. The amount received by the appellants on account of the National Savings Certificates in which they are nominees shall be payable to the respondents after deduction of the amounts of debts or other demands lawfully paid or discharged, if any. Costs made easy.' 7. The view expressed in Vishin N. Khanchandi (supra) was again affirmed in Ram Chander Talwar and Anr. (supra), (2010) 10 SCC 671 wherein the Apex Court held that the provisions of nomination under different regularization/regulations would make no difference and the law laid down in the case of Sarbati Devi (supra) and Vishin N. Khanchandani (supra) shall have same applications. 8. (supra), (2010) 10 SCC 671 wherein the Apex Court held that the provisions of nomination under different regularization/regulations would make no difference and the law laid down in the case of Sarbati Devi (supra) and Vishin N. Khanchandani (supra) shall have same applications. 8. Keeping in view the aforesaid law, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that appointing of nominee would mean to having bequeathed by way of will the amount is not sustainable as a nominee would only be treated as a trustee to the amount and would be entitled to claim from the concerned authorities only with purpose to receive it for further distribution in terms of the provisions of the Succession Act, 1985. Therefore, if on an application moved under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, the learned Court passes an order and distributing the amount as per the Succession Act to the inheritors, no exception can be said to be made out against such order. Hence, the judgment passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bharatpur does not warrant any interference, the appeal stands accordingly dismissed. 9. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.