ORDER S.K. Panigrahi, J. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. In filing this Writ Petition, the Petitioner claiming herself to be the legal heir of the deceased depositor/policy holder, has sought for a direction from this Court to the Branch Manager, LIC of India, Division Office, Cuttack/Opposite Party No.l for releasing the death benefits in respect of the Policy No.8490640l5 in her favour as well as in favour of the proforma Opposite Party Nos.4 & 5 proportionately. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that after death of the deceased policy holder though the Petitioner submitted all relevant documents before the competent authority, the insured amount has not been disbursed in her favour till today. 5. He further draws the attention of this Court to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vishin N. Khanchandani and Anr. Vrs. Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani & Anr., (2000) 6 SCC 724 . The relevant portion of the above noted decision is extracted herein below:- ' 10. The Court further held that the Delhi High Court committed a mistake in not properly appreciating the judgment in B.M. Mundkur V. LIC of India : AIR 1977 Mad 72 : 47 Com Cas 19 : (1977) 1 MLJ 59 . The Court found that the reasons given by the Delhi High Court were not tenable. It was held that a mere nomination made under Section 39 of the Insurance Act did not have the effect of conferring on the nominee any beneficial interest in the amount payable under the insurance policy on the death of the assured. The nomination only indicated the hand which was authorized to receive the amount on the payment of which the insurer got a valid discharge of its liability under the policy. The policy-holder continued to have an interest in the policy during his lifetime of the policy-holder. On the death of the policy-holder, the amount payable under the policy became part of his estate which was governed by the law of succession applicable to him. Such succession may be testamentary or inte-state. Section 39 did not operate as a third kind of succession which could be styled as a statutory testament. A nominee could not be treated as being equivalent to an heir or legatee. Such succession may be testamentary or inte-state. Section 39 did not operate as a third kind of succession which could be styled as a statutory testament. A nominee could not be treated as being equivalent to an heir or legatee. The amount of interest under the policy could, therefore, be claimed by the heirs of the assured in accordance with the law of succession governing them. ' 6. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner and looking to the decision cited hereinabove, this Court without going into the merits of the case directs the Opposite Party Nos.l & 2 to take steps for releasing the entire claim amount/death benefit relating to the above noted policy in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased depositor proportionately within a period of one month from the date of presentation of an authenticated copy of this order. 7. It is further directed that since the nominee is the custodian, he is duty bound to hand-over the entire amount to the legal heirs of the deceased. 8. This Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.