ORDER : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This civil revision preferred under Section 384(3) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is directed against the order passed by the appellate court, by which, the appeal of respondent No.2 & 3 has been rejected and cross-objection has been allowed holding that the respondent No.2 & 3 are entitled for the amount deposited in saving account and the petitioner being the nominee is not entitled for the said amount, which is sought to be challenged in this civil revision. 2. Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the succession court as well as appellate court both have grossly erred in holding that the nominee has no right and title over the property left by Chamar Singh Malakar and his daughters i.e. respondent No.2 & 3 are entitled for the entire amount and accordingly, the finding recorded by both the courts below is perverse to the record. 3. Mr. Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 & 3 would submit that both the courts below are absolutely justified in granting the order in favour of the respondents No.2 & 3 as they are daughters of late Chamar Singh Malakar excluding the petitioner/ nominee, who is only trustee of that amount, in light of various decisions rendered by the Supreme Court including the recent decision in the matter of Shakti Yezdani & Another v. Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar & Others, (2024) 242 Comp Cas 497. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. It is not in dispute that late Chamar Singh Malakar was having Saving Account No.143376 in Gramin Bank in which he has deposited Rs.4,84,000/- and made the petitioner Mahesh Ram as nominee, however, unfortunately he died on 12/13.09.2009 leaving the petitioner as nominee and two daughters respondents No.2 & 3 and after his death, the petitioner has claimed the entire amount being the nominee exclusively, which the trial court has partly granted giving him 1/3 share in said deposited amount, which the appellate Court while allowing cross-objection filed by respondent No.2 & 3 held that the nominee is only a trustee and he would not get any amount and held that the respondent No.2 & 3 are entitled for entire amount being the daughters of deceased, which has been questioned in this revision. 6. The legal position is no longer res integra and it has been held by several judgments of the Supreme Court that the nominee has only right to receive the amount lying in the account of deceased/ depositer; however, he doesn’t have become exclusive owner thereof and the money received by the nominee would devolve as per rules of Succession. In the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Shakti Yezdani (supra), their Lordships in paragraph 25 & 26 held as under : “25. In an illuminating list of precedents, this Court as well as several High Courts have dealt with the concept of ‘nomination’ under legislations like the Government Savings Certificate Act 1959, the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the Life Insurance Act, 1939 and the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It would be apposite to refer to what the Court said on nomination, in reference to these legislations: Case Law/Precedent Held Sarbati Devi & Anr. v. Usha Devi, (1984) 1 SCC 424 Nomination under Section 39 of the Insurance Act 1938 is subject to the claim of heirs of the assured under the law of succession. Nozer Gustad Commissariat v. Central Bank of India, (1993) 1 Mah LJ 228 Nomination under Section 10(2) of the EPF & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 cannot be made in favour of a nonfamily person. Nozer Gustad Commissariat v. Central Bank of India, (1993) 1 Mah LJ 228 Nomination under Section 10(2) of the EPF & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 cannot be made in favour of a nonfamily person. Relied upon Sarbati Devi (supra) to state that the principles therein were applicable to the Employees’ Provident Funds Act as well and not merely restricted to the Insurance Act. Vishin N. Khanchandani v. Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandan, (2000) 6 SCC 724 Nominee entitled to receive the sum due on the savings certificate under Sl. 6(1) of the Govt. Savings Certificate Act 1959, but cannot utilise it. In fact, the nominee may retain the same for those entitled to it under the relevant law of succession. Ram Chander Talwar & Anr. v. Devender Kumar Talwar & Ors., (2010) 10 SCC 671 Nomination made under provisions of Section 45ZA of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 entitled the nominee to receive the deposit amount on the death of the depositor. 26. A consistent view appears to have been taken by the courts, while interpreting the related provisions of nomination under different statutes. It is clear from the referred judgments that the nomination so made would not lead to the nominee attaining absolute title over the subject property for which such nomination was made. In other words, the usual mode of succession is not to be impacted by such nomination. The legal heirs therefore have not been excluded by virtue of nomination.” Their Lordships, while concluding, have further held in paragraph 46 that the nomination process therefore does not override the succession laws and held as under : “46. Additionally, there is a complex layer of commercial considerations that are to be taken into account while dealing with the issue of nomination pertaining to companies or until legal heirs are able to sufficiently establish their right of succession to the company. Therefore, offering a discharge to the entity once the nominee is in picture is quite distinct from granting ownership of securities to nominees instead of the legal heirs. The nomination process therefore does not override the succession laws. Simply said, there is no third mode of succession that the scheme of the Companies Act, 1956 (pari materia provisions in Companies Act, 2013) and Depositories Act, 1996 aims or intends to provide.” 7. The nomination process therefore does not override the succession laws. Simply said, there is no third mode of succession that the scheme of the Companies Act, 1956 (pari materia provisions in Companies Act, 2013) and Depositories Act, 1996 aims or intends to provide.” 7. In view of the above, the petitioner being the nominee only shall have no right in the said amount of deceased and said amount will go to successor as per the rules of the Succession and accordingly, the respondents No.2 & 3 being daughters are entitled for entire amount, which the appellate court has rightly held by correcting the order passed by the Succession Court. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this revision and accordingly, it deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No costs.