JUDGMENT : (H.P. SANDESH, J.) This appeal is filed challenging the concurrent finding passed by both the Courts in O.S.No.168/2009 dated 05.09.2014 and in R.A.No.3/2024 dated 06.03.2025. 2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned Junior Counsel as well as Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant. 3. The suit was filed for the recovery of money from the appointee, who has been appointed as appointee in order to protect the interest of the minor. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff’s mother, namely, Mary Menezes obtained insurance policy bearing No.621039954 from LIC of India for Rs.1,00,000/- and died on 28.01.2006. The defendant was the appointee and the plaintiff was a minor and he was shown as the nominee. That the defendant is the elder brother of plaintiff’s father, the defendant’s brother had given a General Power of Attorney to receive the amount from the LIC. The defendant illegally utilized the amount and failed to pay the same to the plaintiff. Thus, filed the suit for recovery of Rs.2,94,500/- along with interest at 12% p.a. 4. In pursuance of suit summons, the defendant appeared and filed the written statement contending that he was only an appointee by the deceased and that the husband of the deceased Mary Menezes by name Mr. Simon Philip Menezes and his two sons are the persons entitled to receive the benefit, since nominee is only to collect the amount from the LIC and distribute it to all the heirs. That the second son of deceased Mary Menezes by name Master Edward Lewis Menezes is in the custody of his father and he has entrusted the case and custody of said Master Edward Lewis Menezes to him and hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit. 5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed two Issues at the first instance which read as follows : 1. Whether plaintiff proves that the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,94,500/- with future interest at the rate of 12% p.a. to him? 2. Whether defendant proves that he acted as appointee of plaintiff and after collecting the LIC amount he made over the same to said Mr. Simon Philip Menezes? 3. What order or decree? 6. Whether plaintiff proves that the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,94,500/- with future interest at the rate of 12% p.a. to him? 2. Whether defendant proves that he acted as appointee of plaintiff and after collecting the LIC amount he made over the same to said Mr. Simon Philip Menezes? 3. What order or decree? 6. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the GPA of plaintiff is examined as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P6. On the other hand, the defendant examined himself as DW1 and got examined one witness as DW2 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D8. The Trial Court after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record answered Issue No.1 partly in affirmative and Issue No.2 in negative and decreed the suit. In the meantime, after decree of the suit and before filing of the appeal, an amount of Rs.80,006/- was transferred to the father of the plaintiff by name Simon Philip Menezes, for which the bank extract was marked as Ex.D9. The father of the plaintiff Simon Philip Menezes expired during the pendency of the appeal in the year 2018. The defendant also preferred an appeal in R.A.No.40/2016 and the said appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Trial Court to frame additional issue and to dispose of the suit in accordance with law. Accordingly, the additional issue was framed as whether the defendant proves that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper party. The Trial Court after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record answered Issue No.1 as negative and decreed the suit and directed the defendant to pay policy amount of Rs.2,44,073/- with interest at the rate of 8.5% from 31.10.2007 till the payment of full amount. 7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred in R.A.No.3/2024. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in the appeal, formulated the Points which read as follows: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,94,500/- with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum to him? 2. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in the appeal, formulated the Points which read as follows: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,94,500/- with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum to him? 2. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is opposed to law, facts of the case, contrary to the weight of evidence and probabilities of the case? 3. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court needs interference of this Court? 4. What order? 8. The First Appellate Court having reassessed the material on record, in paragraph 23 discussed that the plaintiff was minor when the insurance amount was received and also taken note of the contention that the defendant taken care of the plaintiff since his minority and has spent more than Rs.3,00,000/- for his education and his development. That the plaintiff ought to had considered the same and also submits that this defendant would not be liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff and this fact is not pleaded in the written statement and same was taken note of by the Trial Court. It is also held that it is the bounden duty of the nominee first to pay the amount to the plaintiff and then could have claimed the same from the plaintiff by providing proper oral and documentary evidence on record. When there is no pleading at all by the defendant nor the defendant has claimed the set off in this regard, this Court cannot consider the urge of the defendant. It is further observed in paragraph 24 that it is the brother of the plaintiff who can claim the amount from the plaintiff and not from the defendant. The defendant has clearly admitted that he has not paid the share of the plaintiff, neither there is any proof in order to show that the amount is paid to the father of the plaintiff except Ex.D9. The defendant cannot shift the burden upon the plaintiff in order to show that the father of the plaintiff has received his share from the LIC. When the burden was upon the defendant, he could have summoned the father of the plaintiff in order to prove the same. The defendant cannot shift the burden upon the plaintiff in order to show that the father of the plaintiff has received his share from the LIC. When the burden was upon the defendant, he could have summoned the father of the plaintiff in order to prove the same. Mere bank statement as per Ex.D9 does not render this Court to come to the conclusion that the defendant has paid the amount to the father of the plaintiff with respect to the share in the LIC amount. When the defendant himself is admitting that he has not paid the amount to the plaintiff, the evidence of PW1 cannot be rejected in limine. 9. It is further observed in paragraph No.25 that in order to prove the same, the brother of the plaintiff was examined as D.W.2. But D.W.2 was a minor at the time of leading his evidence. Minor’s evidence regarding the payment cannot be considered. It is also taken note that D.W.2 is residing along with the defendant. Therefore, if D.W.2 after attaining majority repudiates his contention, will lead to multiplicity of proceedings. The evidence of the minor with regard to the receipt of the amount from the defendant cannot be considered at this stage. The Trial Court also taken note of the contention of the appellant that he has already paid an amount of Rs.80,000/- to the father of the plaintiff and that the brother of the plaintiff will be paid, if necessary. But the appointee is not a person, who is entitled to retain the amount disbursed from the LIC, but has to distribute the same at the first instance and then claim the amount regarding the expenses, if any, from the concerned parties. The defendant could have tried to amend the pleading, if any, in order to show that amount has been paid to the father of the plaintiff. It is also observed that the law is very well settled that the duty of the nominee is only to receive the amount and disburse the amount among the legal representatives of the deceased policy holder. The brother and the father of the plaintiff, if they are interested in receiving the amount from the defendant, can claim their 1/3 rd right in future from the plaintiff by filing a separate suit. The brother and the father of the plaintiff, if they are interested in receiving the amount from the defendant, can claim their 1/3 rd right in future from the plaintiff by filing a separate suit. The defendant cannot direct the plaintiff to implead them or any person in the present provision, where the legal representatives would be entitled to claim from the other legal representatives of the deceased. The Appellate Court also taken note of the non-payment of the amount and taken note of interest at the rate of 8.5% to be paid to the appellant and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error and he was appointed as a appointee and he was made as a nominee and all the legal representatives are parties to the proceedings. The learned counsel contend that the Trial Court committed an error in answering additional issue No.3 after the remand which was framed, that they are not necessary parties. The learned counsel contend that it is the specific case of the appellant that he made the payment to the father of the plaintiff and he is also ready to make the payment of share of the nominee and hence this Court has to admit the appeal and frame substantial question of law. The learned counsel contend that both the Courts failed to take note of the fact that the nominee cannot make use of the entire amount and he is only entitled for his share and accordingly, the appointee has made the payment and hence this Court has to admit the appeal and frame substantial question of law. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also on perusal of the material available on record, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff was a minor and also it is not in dispute that in terms of the policy, minor is a nominee and the purpose of appointing the defendant as appointee was since the plaintiff was a minor and the minor cannot draw the amount from the LIC and the fact that the defendant had drawn the money from LIC is also not in dispute. But the defendant took the contention that he had made the payment of some portion to the father of the plaintiff. But the defendant took the contention that he had made the payment of some portion to the father of the plaintiff. It has to be noted that when the suit is filed for the recovery of the amount against the defendant and when he had taken the money, it is his duty to pay the amount and recover the same from the plaintiff, if any, legal payments are made and the same has not been done. The very purpose of appointing him as appointee is not served and the appointee i.e., the defendant violated the purpose of very appointment made him as appointee. He had to take care of the interest of the minor and instead of taking care of the interest of the minor, he had indulged in distributing the amount after the disposal of the suit and the same is observed by the Appellate Court. The said amount is transferred subsequent to the passing of the judgment in O.S.No.168/2009 and the same is only in order to overcome the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and the same is found in terms of the document of Ex.D.9. 12. No doubt, the Appellate Court remanded the matter back to the Trial Court with a direction to frame additional issue whether the defendant proves that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties and the Trial Court while considering the issue, taken note of the same and answered the same in the negative that they are not necessary parties. The Appellate Court observed that, if they are entitled for any amount, the same could be recovered from the nominee and not from the defendant and the defendant also exceeded his limit. Instead of taking care of the minor, who is made as appointee, he had indulged in distributing the amount after the disposal of the suit. The Appellate Court observed that, if they are entitled for any amount, the same could be recovered from the nominee and not from the defendant and the defendant also exceeded his limit. Instead of taking care of the minor, who is made as appointee, he had indulged in distributing the amount after the disposal of the suit. It was the desire and will of the mother to take care of minor son and instead of making the father as appointee or nominee, appointed the defendant as appointee to take care of the minor who has been appointed as nominee for the policy, but he has not done the same and as against he has received the amount and not paid the amount to the plaintiff and he was only appointed as appointee for the specific purpose to take care of minor who cannot draw the amount as he is not capable to withdraw the amount. Hence, I do not find any error committed by both the Courts in considering the material available on record and concurrent finding is based on the material and hence I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and frame substantial question of law. 13. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed.