SARASWATHIBAI Vs. MALATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole question that arises for consideration in this Second Appeal relates to the right of the appellant u/S.39 of the Insurance Act, 1938.

(2.) The facts which are necessary for the determination of the question are: One Madhukar Kulkarni had taken a Policy of Assurance for Rs.2,000 with the Life Insurance Corporation of India. He was a teacher and the premiums were paid out of his salary income. He had nominated his mother as a nominee under S.39. The Policy was taken on 14th Dec, 1959, and assured died on 31st Oct, 1966, leaving behind his wife (the plaintiff) a,nd the mother (the defendant). In the normal course, each would have got one-half of the assured amount. But, the mother being the nominee, claimed the entire amount on the sole ground that the nomination confers, on her an absolute right to the exclusion of the wife. So, the wife filed a suit for declaration and also for recovery of half the amount due under the Policy of her husband.

(3.) On the consideration of the evidence, both the Courts treated the sum due under the Policy as a separate asset of the deceased as the premiums were paid out of his salary and not from the joint family fund. The Courts have further held that S.39 confers on the nominee a bare right to collect the Policy money on the death of the assured and to give a good discharge to the Insurance Coy and the nominee does not become the owner of the money payable under the Policy. The correctness of this view is assailed in this Second Appeal, preferred by the defendant.