RAMAYEE Vs. KRISHNAVENI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF in O. S. No. 2432 of 1979 on the file of District munsif, Turaiyur, is the appellant in the above second appeal. She filed the said suit for declaration that she is also a heir to the deceased Moorthy to receive the amount of gratuity, family pension and other amounts to be disbursed by the Tamil Nadu Government and the amount to be disbursed by the life Insurance Corporation of India and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 2 to 4 from disbursing the said amounts.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff as found in the plaint are as follows:- One Moorthy, the son of the plaintiff and the husband of the first defendant was employed as a police constable in Thanjavur East Police circle. THE said Moorthy died in harness on 31. 7. 79. THE plaintiff and the first defendant are the only legal heirs of the deceased Moorthy. According to the plaintiff, Tamil Nadu Government disburses Rs. 10,000 as family benefit fund, the gratuity and pension to the heirs of the deceased Moorthy. THE first defendant is trying to get those amounts to herself. On knowing that the plaintiff issued a notice to the Superintendent of Police, East Thanjavur stating her right to the said amounts. On 13. 9. 1979 the said Superintendent of police issued a reply to the same stating that without any order from the Civil court, the amounts to be disbursed by the Government will not be disbursed to the plaintiff. It is contended that in those amounts the plaintiff has also half share. THE deceased Moorthy has a policy holder in the 4th defendant corporation. THE plaintiff issued a notice to the 4th defendant and she had not received any reply. Since the first defendant is admitting to collect the insurance amount from the 4th defendant, the plaintiff has constrained to file a suit.

(3.) IN identical circumstances the Supreme Court in sarbati Devi v. Usha Devi, AIR 1984 S. C. 346 has held ' A mere nomination made under Section 39 of the INsurance Act, 1938 does not have the effect of conferring on the nominee any beneficial interest in the amount payable under the life insurance policy on the death of the assured. The nomination only indicates the hand which is authorised to receive the amount, on the payment of which the insurer gets a valid discharge of its liability under the policy. The amount, however, can be claimed by the heirs of the assured in accordance with the law of successio n govenring them. The summary of the relevant provisions of Section 39 establishes clearly that the policy holder continues to hold interest in the policy during his lifetime and the nominee acquires no sort of interest in the policy during the lifetime of the policy holder. If that is so, on the death of the policy holder the amount payable under the policy becomes part of his estate which is governed by the law of succession applicable to him. Such succession may be testamentary or intestate. There is no warrant for th e position that Section 39 of the Act operates as a third kind of succession, which is styled as a' statutory testament' . The provision in sub-section (6) of Section 39 which says that the amount shall be payable to the nominee or nominees does not mean that the amount shall belong to the nominee or nominees. The language of section 39 is not capable of altering the course of succession under law.' IN another Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Narammal (died) v. Kanthamani, 1992 (2) M. L. J. 538. Their Lordships had an occasion to consider the similar question following the decision of the Apex court in Sarbati Devi v. Usha Devi, AIR 1984 S. C. 346. The Division Bench had also held' that the nominee gets only a right to receive the amount to distribute the same to the heirs of the deceased in accordance with the law of succession governing them.'