MOHAN PRASAD Vs. SURESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUCCESSION was claimed to the cash deposits left by Smt. Vimla Gour. This Vimla Gour was in the employment of the Government. She left behind General Provident Fund, Family Benefit Fund and certain other amounts payable to her by the Government. These come to Rs. 55, 413/ -. Application under section 372 of the Indian Succession Act was filed by the respondent Suresh Kumar. Suresh Kumar is the brother of Smt. Vimla Gour. This application was opposed by her husband Mohan Prasad. Claim of Mohan Prasad was negatived by both the courts below, He has filed this revision petition in the Court. The petitioner submits that he is a preferential heir and is entitled to the cash amounts left by his wife, he is placing reliance on Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. His claim was, however, negatived on the basis of the disqualification found incorporated in Sec. 25 of the aforesaid Act it was the case of the respondent/brother that his sister was treated with such cruelty which ultimately caused her death and therefore, the petitioner should be held to be debarred in view of the provisions contained in section 25 of the Act. It is this aspect which found favour with the Courts below. The claim of the present petitioner was negatived. Before noticing the various submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties it be seen that the deceased Smt. Vimla Gour had named her brother as a nominee for receiving the aforementioned amount. This fact also prevailed with the courts below in granting the succession certificate in favour of the brother.

(2.) THERE may be something to be said in favour of the petitioner so far concept of nominee is concerned. A nominee is only entitled to receive the money and he is supposed to distribute the amount amongst the heirs. Such is the view expressed by the Supreme Court of India in the case reported as Smt. Sarbati Devi v. Smt. Usha Devi (AIR 1984 SC 346). In the above case it was held that mere nomination under section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938 docs not have the effect of conferring on the nominee any beneficial interest. The nomination only indicates the hand which is authorised to receive the amount. Thus, merely because the brother was named as a nominee may not in itself be a ground to declare him as entitled to the amount in question. What is required to be seen is whether independently of the above the husband intitled to claim the amount or not.

(3.) THUS , the questions which are required to be gone into this petition are (i) Whether the concept of Slridhan would stand in the way of the petitioner and (ii) Whether the bar contained in Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act would be attracted to the facts of this case. So far as the first argument is concerned, there is a direct authority of this Court in Krishna Pyari Bai Dixit (Smt.) v. Gobind Mishra (1992) I.L.J. 624) in which the provisions of Section 15 and also the concept of Stridhan was taken into consideration. Relevant observations made in paras. 3 and 4 be noticed: -