S FAZEELATH BEGUM Vs. I K ABDUL HAKEEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Seventh respondent in O.P.No.489 of 1998 is the appellant in this appeal.

(2.) Respondents 1 to 8 filed the aforesaid O.P. under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act seeking succession certificate in their favour for the 3/4th amount from out of the securities left behind by K. Shabbir Ahmed (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), who happened to be the son of respondents 1 and 2 and brother of respondents 3 to 8, i.e., policy No. 42584A dated 1-11-1997, Policy N0.425874B dated 1-6-1992 of A.P. Government Life Insurance Fund, Policy No.AP/46037-CS dated 16-3-1992 of postal life insurance, and the amounts lying to the credit of S.B. Account No.20/3488 in the State Bank of India, TIF Compound, Gooty Road, Kurnool, and S.B. Account in Syndicate Bank. Their contention is that since as per the Muslim Law all of them put together are entitled to 3/4th share in the estate left behind by the deceased and the remaining 1/4th belongs to the appellant, who is the wife of the deceased, they may be granted Succession Certificate in respect of 3/4th share of the deceased in the above mentioned securities. The said petition is opposed by the appellant on the ground that as widow of the deceased she alone is entitled to all his death benefits, as she was nominated by the deceased to receive those amounts. In support of the case of respondents 1 to 8 one witness was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked, and on her behalf appellant examined herself as R.W.1 and another witness as R.W.2, but did not adduce any documentary evidence. During the pendency of the proceedings 1 st respondent died. So respondents 2 to 8 were recognized as his heirs and consequently their share also got enlarged. The trial court on the ground that respondents 1 to 8 are also heirs to the estate left behind by the deceased, allowed the petition and ordered issuance of Succession Certificate to respondents 2 to 8 for 3/4th share in the above mentioned securities left behind by the deceased. Hence, this appeal by the widow of the deceased.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that since the retiral benefits do not form part of the estate of the deceased but are governed by the nomination as per the Rules under which the scheme came into force, the appellant, as the nominee of the deceased, only is entitled to those benefits to the exclusion of respondents 1 to 8 and so the court below was in error in allowing the O.P. He placed strong reliance on K. Satyavathi v. Employees State Insurance Corporation and Saroj v. Murti Devi, A.P. Revised Pension Rules, A.P. Government Life Insurance Fund Rules and A.P. General Provident Fund Rules in support of his contention. He also contended that since the suit filed by respondents 1 to 8 in O.S.No.596 of 1998, for declaration that they also are jointly entitled to 3/4th share in the estate left behind by the deceased was dismissed, this O.P. filed by respondents 1 to 8 subsequent to the dismissal of the said suit ought not to have been entertained by the court below. The learned counsel for respondents 2 to 8, relying on "introduction to the Indian Succession Act, 1925" with Short Notes published in 1996 by Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. reading: