PHOOL CHAND SINGH Vs. CENTRAL DEFENCE ACCOUNT CC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this special appeal the Appellant has challenged the order dated 02nd December, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12446 of 2004 (Phool Chand Singh v. The Central Defence Account (CC), Lucknow and Ors.), whereunder learned Single Judge refused to grant any relief towards payment of monetary benefits subsequent to death of one Kanta Singh and held that though according to the writ Petitioner-Appellant succession certificate was issued in his favour but there is absolutely no material on record, which could substantiate as on what basis and on what conditions the succession certificate has been issued.

(2.) We find three things from the record. Firstly, there is an order of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghazipur issuing succession certificate, pursuant to the application dated 27th August, 2001, in favour of the Appellant as well as one Sri Ram Briksha Singh. Such succession certificate is restricted only towards the amount lying in the State Bank of India, Ghazipur Branch, District Ghazipur and market value of certain securities on the date of application, which is stated to be "Nil". So far as this part is concerned, the matured value of the said account of State Bank of India has been given to the Appellant by the bank. According to the Appellant, Ram Briksha Singh never objected in receiving such amount. Secondly, there is an order dated 10th May, 2002 with regard to declaration of right under the will in favour of the Appellant and the order has also been passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghazipur. However, the dispute is mainly with regard to amount of gratuity and others. In this respect, we find from the counter affidavit of the Union of India filed in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge that there are two nominees for gratuity amount, one Gulab Singh and Anr. Harish Chandra. Neither they are the parties herein nor their claim as nominees can be ignored. Inspite of the same, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has contended that there is no necessity of issuing any notice to Gulab Singh and Harish Chandra in view of the order of the Civil Court declaring right of the Appellant as per the will.

(3.) We are of the view that meanings of nominee and heir are totally different. If the heir is stated to be nominee then there is no problem with regard to any claim. But if the nominee is different from the heir, then the authorities normally release the amount in favour of the nominee because they are not supposed to decide the title of any property. It is duty of the heir claiming any property or corpus from the nominee to initiate a civil proceeding, if the nominee refuses to pay. In this regard, a Division Bench of this Court, presided over by one of us (Amitava Lala, J.), has already clarified the position in the judgment in Bihasu Yadav v. Post Master, Mau Nath Bhanjan and Anr., 2006 1 AWC 208 and held as follows: