CR No.4154 of 2013(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CR No.4154 of 2013 Date of decision October 7, 2013 Kavita ....... Petitioner Versus Bhateri and another ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. S. S. Pathania, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not?. No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. No K. Kannan, J (oral).
1. The revision petition is against an order allowing an application for amendment of a judgment delivered in succession certificate proceedings. The mother of the deceased on the one hand and widow and son of the deceased on the other were at logger heads with two independent petitions for issue of succession certificate for outstanding dues to the estate of the deceased. The application was filed for amendment to conclude the amount due to the estate in a Group Insurance Scheme. The Group Insurance has provided for the wife to be made a nominee and when an application was filed by the mother seeking for amendment of the order to include her 1/3rd share in the amount due as payable under the Insurance Scheme, the objection taken was two fold; i) in the Archana Arora 2013.10.10 15:37 I am the author of this document High Court Chandigarh CR No.4154 of 2013(O&M) 2 garb of amendment a right to particular amount which was not originally set forth in the petition could not be made; ii) the amount payable under the scheme is payable in full only to the nominee and therefore there was no scope for making an amendment. The court below has rejected these objections and has allowed for amendment of the order already passed to include a claim for 1/3rd share to the mother also in the amount payable under the Insurance scheme.
2. Learned counsel for the wife and children places reliance on Clause 11 and 16 of the Army Group Insurance Scheme. Clause 11 makes reference to the requirement of an individual to make a fresh nomination in the name of his wife if he had not already made his wife the nominee and any other nomination would stand automatically cancelled. Clause 16 renders invalid a nominee on change of marital status, such as when the Army personnel was unmarried at the time of making an earlier nomination and if he had made a nomination in favour of any one particular individual it will stand revoked on the day he gets married and even if he fails to make a fresh nomination the earlier nomination will be treated as cancelled. The contention that the wife and children will alone be entitled to be paid the amount.
3. If there has been a nomination in favour of the wife such nominee could be paid the amount, if there is no dispute of legal heirs themselves. The mother could well allow the nominee to withdraw the amount and press for her own share in independent proceedings. If, however the parties are already in lis and entitlements are subject of adjudication in succession certificate Archana Arora 2013.10.10 15:37 I am the author of this document High Court Chandigarh CR No.4154 of 2013(O&M) 3 proceedings then the Court is not without power to ensure that the distribution of the amounts due to the estate are done as per heirship at law. The deceased is a Hindu admittedly and as per Section 8 read with Schedule-I the mother who is a Class I heir along with the wife and son is entitled to a 1/3rd share. The nominee's rights to recover the amount is only in the nature of a trustee and does not become the owner of the said amount through the nomination. This issue has been considered in several decisions of the Supreme Court and most notably in Sarbati Devi Vs. Usha Devi AIR1984SC346 Usha Rajan Bhattacharjee Vs. Avinash Chandra Chakraborty__AIR1997(10) SCC344and in still recent judgments in Challamma Vs. Tilaga 2009 (9) SCC299and Shipra Sen Gupta Vs. Mridul Sen Gupta 2009 10 SCC680 The Court has considered the issue of nomination to LIC policy and has reiterated the principle that a nominee takes it only as a trustee.
4. It could have been possible in this case that the court did not pass any such order and left it to the parties in an independent suit since the Court deciding a petition under Chapter X of the Indian Succession Act does not deal with legal entitlement of the money. Section 387 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 makes it clear that no decision under this part shall finally adjudicate on the question of right between the parties. If the Court therefore relegated the parties to independent suit there could have been still no objection caused to it. However, if the court below has taken a view and considered it for good at least for the time being that the mother should also be entitled to recover 1/3rd share, I cannot find Archana Arora 2013.10.10 15:37 I am the author of this document High Court Chandigarh CR No.4154 of 2013(O&M) 4 any illegality in the order for an interference in civil revision.
5. The order is maintained and the civil revision is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 7, 2013 archana Archana Arora 2013.10.10 15:37 I am the author of this document High Court Chandigarh