MALLI DEI Vs. KANCHAN PRAVA DEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE material facts may be stated in short. One Sarada Cha-ran Pradhan was serving as an assistant in the planning and Coordination Department (planning branch) in the Orissa Secretariat. He died on 13-3-1968 leaving behind his mother (plaintiff 1), a son (plaintiff 2), his widow (defendant 1) and two other minor sons who ere not parties to the suit After death of Sarada, the petitioners filed T. S. No. 139/70 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Cuttack, for declaration of title to a sum of Rs. Five thousand secured by the insurance policy on the life of the deceased. The petitioners filed an application for issue of an ad interim injunction against the defendant to restrain her from withdrawing the amount payable under policy no. 10755464 on the life of the deceased. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed this application and his order was confirmed by the learned Additional District Judge by his order dated 30th June, 1971, whereby he directed that the suit should be heard within a month. It is against this confirming order of the Additional District Judge that this Civil Revision has been filed.

(2.) MR. Mohapatna, for the petitioners, places reliance on Section 39 (6} of the insurance Act. 1938 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), in support of his contention that a nominee does not acquire an interest in the policy. In other words, a nomination merely confers a right on the nominee to receive the amount under the policy after death of the insured. He is merely a trustee on behalf of all the heirs including himself. In my opinion the contention is unassailable and is fully supported by a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court, reported in air 1972 All 167. (Raja Ram v. Mata Prasad), wherein, the previous law was reviewed. Section 39 (6) of the Act runs thus:

(3.) UNDER Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the mother, widow end sons of the deceased are simultaneous heirs in class I. The plaintiffs, the defendant and the two minor sons who are not parties to the suit are, therefore, entitled to the amount payable under the policy. The plaintiffs shall foe entitled to 2/5ths share thereof.