JUDGMENT : The present civil misc. appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 10.9.2001 passed by the learned District Judge, Merta, District Nagaur in Civil Misc. (Succession) Application No.72/1998, whereby the learned trial court partly allowed the application of the appellant. 2. The facts in nutshell are that the appellant preferred an application before the learned trial court under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act stating therein that he is the husband of late Smt. Santosh. His wife was a constable in the Rajasthan Police bearing belt no.206, who unfortunately expired on 2.6.1998. The said application was preferred for getting the succession certificate in order to claim for the balance and dues of his wife i.e., the amount towards Provident Fund (Rs.15,000/-), State Insurance (Rs.18,000/-), claim amount (Rs.15,000/-) and Police Valent Fund (Rs.50,000/-) and for getting the amount of Life Insurance Policy bearing no.500257308 in total a sum of Rs.1,16,000/-. The appellant also stated that before his marriage with the deceased Santosh, she was a government servant and therefore, in her service record, obviously, she has made her father as her nominee. 3. The respondents claiming themselves to be the successors of late Smt. Santosh filed their reply and stated that they being the nominee of the deceased are entitled for the amount of Life Insurance Corporation Policy and State Insurance Scheme. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed three issues and while deciding the application, held that the appellant is entitled to receive succession certificate only for the amount of provident fund to the tune of Rs.15,000/-and claim amount to the tune of Rs.18,000/-and he is not entitled to receive the succession certificate in other heads and the remaining amount. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned trial court has committed grave illegality while partly allowing the application. It is submitted that it is the appellant who is the sole successor and legal heir of his deceased wife. It is further submitted that because of the fact that merely before marriage, the deceased nominated her father, may not curtail his rights to receive the amount in question as her sole successur. It is submitted that it is the appellant who is the sole successor and legal heir of his deceased wife. It is further submitted that because of the fact that merely before marriage, the deceased nominated her father, may not curtail his rights to receive the amount in question as her sole successur. Learned counsel submits that mere nomination does not have the effect of conferring to the nominee any beneficial interest in the amount payable under the LIC Policy and State Insurance Fund, on death of insurer. The nomination only indicates the hand which is authorized to receive the amount on 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. Therefore, the learned trial court committed grave illegality while refusing to issue succession certificate to the appellant with respect to the amount of LIC Policy and State Insurance Fund. In support of his arguments, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments: (i) Smt. Sarbati Devi & Anr. Vs. Smt. Usha Devi reported in AIR 1984 SC 346 (ii) Vishin N. Khanchandani (Shri) & Anr. Vs. Vidhya Lachmandas Khanchandani & Anr. reported in 2000 DNJ (SC) 401. (iii) Shipra Sengupta Vs. Mridul Sengupta & Ors reported in (2009) 10 SCC 680 . 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the learned trial court has rightly passed the order impugned and there is no illegality in it. It is submitted that the rule gives right to the nominee to collect the insurance money even on its maturity in the event of the policy holder's death. Thus, it is submitted that the present civil misc. appeal may be rejected. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record as well as the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellant. 7. A perusal of the order impugned makes it is clear that though the learned trial court allowed the application in part and ordered to issue succession certificate for amount of Rs.15,000/-and Rs.18,000/-towards provident fund and claim amount respectively, but has refused to issue succession certificate with respect to the amount of LIC Policy and State Insurance Fund. 8. 7. A perusal of the order impugned makes it is clear that though the learned trial court allowed the application in part and ordered to issue succession certificate for amount of Rs.15,000/-and Rs.18,000/-towards provident fund and claim amount respectively, but has refused to issue succession certificate with respect to the amount of LIC Policy and State Insurance Fund. 8. In Sarbati Devi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court in para no.12 held as under:- "12. Moreover there is one other strong circumstance in this case which dissuades us from taking a view contrary to the decisions of all other High Courts and accepting the view expressed by the Delhi High Court in the two recent judgments delivered in the year 1978 and in the year 1982. The Act has been in force from the year 1938 and all along almost all the High Courts in India have taken the view that a mere nomination effected under section 39 does not deprive the heirs of their rights in the amount payable under a life insurance policy. Yet Parliament has not chosen to make any amendment to the Act. In such a situation unless there are strong and compelling reasons to hold that all these decisions are wholly erroneous, the Court should be slow to take a different view. The reasons given by the Delhi High Court are unconvincing. We, therefore, hold that the judgments of the Delhi High Court in Fauja Singh's case (supra) and in Mrs. Uma Sehgal's case (supra) do not lay down the law correctly. They are, therefore, overruled. 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." 9. In Vishin N. Khanchandani (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed in paras nos.12 and 14, which read thus: "12. In Vishin N. Khanchandani (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed in paras nos.12 and 14, which read thus: "12. The submission made on behalf of the appellants has no substance in view of sub-section (2) of Section 8 and the Statement of Objects and Reasons necessitating the passing of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 8 provides that if any payment is made in accordance with the provisions of the Act to a nominee, the same shall be a full discharge from all further liabilities in respect of the sum so paid. Section 7 of the Act provides that after the death of the holder of the savings certificates payment of the sum shall be made to the nominee, if any, and sub-section (1) of Section 8 declares that such payment shall be a full discharge from all further liabilities in respect of the sum so paid. However, sub-section (2) of Section 8 specifies that the payment made to the nominee under sub-section (1) shall not preclude any executor or administrator or the legal representative of the deceased holder of a savings certificate from recovering from the person receiving the same under Section 7; the amount remaining in nominee's hand after deducting the amount of all debts or other demands lawfully paid or discharged by him in due course of administration. In other words though the nominee of the national savings certificates has a right to be paid the sum due on such savings certificates after the death of the holder, yet he retains the said amount for the benefit of the persons who are entitled to it under the law of succession applicable in the case, however, subject to the exception of deductions mentioned in the sub-section. In the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act it is stated: "The Post Office National Savings Certificate Ordinance, 1944 (42 of 1944), issued under Section 72 of the Ninth Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935, as the provisions of the India and Burma (Emergency Provgisions) Act, 1940 (3 and 4 Geo. 6, Ch. 33) regulates the sale and discharge of National Savings Certificates issued through the Post Office. 6, Ch. 33) regulates the sale and discharge of National Savings Certificates issued through the Post Office. Suggestions have been made from time to time that as the production of legal proof of succession involves considerable delay and expense, the holders of savings certificates may be allowed the right to nominate one or more persons to receive the amounts due in respect of such certificates in the event of their death without the production of succession certificate or other proof of title. In seeking to amend that Ordinance for the above purpose, opportunity is taken to replace it by an Act of Parliament." (emphasis supplied) 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 of the Act in 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." 10. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shipra Sengupta (supra) in paras nos.17 and 18 held so: 17. The controversy involved in the instant case is no longer res integra. The nominee is entitled to receive the same, but the amount so received is to be distributed according to the law of succession. In terms of the factual on heirs and legal representatives entitled to succeed. The controversy involved in the instant case is no longer res integra. The nominee is entitled to receive the same, but the amount so received is to be distributed according to the law of succession. In terms of the factual on heirs and legal representatives entitled to succeed. Therefore, on the day when the right of succession opened, the appellant, his widow became entitled to one-half of the amount of the general provident fund, the other half going to the mother and on her death, the other surviving son getting the same. 18. In view of the clear legal position, it is made abundantly clear that the amount in any head can be received by the nominee, but the amount can be claimed by the heirs of the deceased in accordance with law of succession governing them. In other words, nomination does not confer any beneficial interest on the nominee. In the instant case amounts so received are to be distributed according to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956." 11. In view of the above, it is clear that though the amount under the head of LIC Policy and State Insurance Fund may be received by the nominee, i.e., father of the deceased employee in the present case, but the entitlement of the same would be that of the appellant. 12. Hence, the present appeal is disposed of with a direction to the appropriate authorities of LIC and State Insurance Fund to release the amount of LIC Policy No.500257308 and State Insurance Fund in favour of the nominee of deceased within a period of two months from today. The appellant, being the sole heir of the deceased shall be entitled to receive the amount from the nominee.