KHYRUNNISSA BEGUM Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is is a petition for succession certificate by the step-mother, full-brother, stepbrothers and step-sisters of deceased Zaibunnissa Begum in respect of a 3/4th share in regard to two insurance policies viz., Policy No. 227835 for Rs. 2000 with the Oriental Life Assurance Company Ltd., and Policy No. 25065 for Rs. 3000/with the United India Life Assurance Company Ltd. This petition is opposed by the heirs of the deceased Zaibunnissa's husband Mohamed Abdulla, the assured under these policies.

(2.) The facts are: Mohamed Abdulla who was employed in the Prohibition Department took out these two policies maturing after a stated period or payable at death. He assigned on 9-10-1928 the policy taken with the Oriental Insurance Company in favour of his wife Zaibunnissa Begum. The endorsement of assignment recites that the assignment was made out of natural love and affection and that the benefits under the policy are to revert to the assignor or to his estate on the previous death of the assignee or on the assignor surviving the period of maturity, if any. In the case of the policy taken with the United India Assurance Company, though the petition has wrongly stated that a similar assignment was made in favour of the wife, it is now found from the letter dated 24-6-1954 of that Company that the policy had been assigned on 1-11-1935 by the assured in favour of the Secretary of State for India in Council now represented by the President of the Indian Union and now actually in the custody of the Accountant-General, Madras. It is obvious that this assignment has been made in favour of the Government as the assured must have been paying the premium thereunder from out of his monthly provident fund contributions. This Mohamed Abdulla died on 22-8-1952 long surviving his wife Zaibunnissa Begum who died on 24-3-1943. The dispute between the petitioners and objectors is that the petitioners claiming to be the heirs of this Zaibunnissa claim 3/4th of the amount and the objectors claiming to be the heirs of Mohamed Abdulla state that the petitioners are not entitled to more than one- half. There is no dispute that if the petitioner's claim as heirs of Zaibunnissa, their shares will amount to 3/4th and if they claim as heirs of Abdullah, their shares will amount to 1/2.

(3.) The case for the petitioners is that on account of these assignments which according to them were both in favour of Zaibunnissa, she has got a vested interest in the amounts covered by the two policies and that on her death the amounts due to her are collectable by her heirs. I have already pointed out that in the case of the United India policy the assignment bus been made in favour of the Government and not in favour of the wife. Therefore, on the death of Mohamed Abdulla it is only his heirs who will be entitled thereto, naturally subject to the rights of the Government, if any. Therefore the succession certificate can be granted to the petitioners on the foot of their being the heirs of Mohamed Abdulla in regard to the United India policy in the following form viz., that succession certificate will be issued in their names with a rider added that the insurance amount he directly be made payable into this Court and that on its being so deposited the petitioners will be entitled to draw one-half of the amount and the other half will be allowed to be drawn by the respondents on payment to the petitioners one-half of the expenses incurred by them for obtaining the succession certificate.