LYDIA CUTINHA PRIYA Vs. I N GANAPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed agianst the order dated 16-12-1986, passed by the 7th Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 5157/86.

(2.) The petitioner, according to her, she isthe only Class-1 heir of late Sri Nanjappa, P.S.I., entitled under law to receive all the amounts due and payable to the legal heir of Sri Nanjappa. But, prior to her marriage with Sri Nanjappa, the late Nanjappa in the policy in question had mentioned the name of his father as nominee. But, recently, the Supreme Court has held cvcnthough name of nominee is there, he is only a trustee, who has been authorised by a late policy holder to receive money. He has to receive that money for himself if he is a legal heir and also on behalf of all the other heirs. The order passed by the learned Civil Judge is not a speaking order. Nothing has been examined and no reasons have been assigned to pass the order in question. Therefore, it is not a speaking order and deserves to be remanded to the trial Court.

(3.) In the result, the civil revision petition isallowed. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law by giving opportunity to both sides to produce their evidence both oral and documentary in support of their contentions. However, this Court had issued temporary injunction, which may continue till disposal of the suit as the suit is ripe for the evidence. Petition allowed.