MAMONI CHOUDHURY Vs. PRADIP KUMAR CHOUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A. S. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, and Mr. B. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. I have also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2.

(2.) Dilip Kr, Choudhury (since deceased) was an employee of the respondent No. 1, namely, M/s. Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. Dhaligaon, Bongaigaon, Dilip Kr. Choudhury died and on his death, a sum of Rs. 6,56,090/- has been finalized as his monetary claim under the JPA Insurance Policy payable to his surviving legal heirs, namely, the two appellants herein, who are sisters of the said deceased and the respondent No. 1 herein, who is the brother of the said deceased. The said deceased left the respondent No. 1 herein as the nominee in respect of his said JPA Insurance Policy, Claiming that they too, as legal heirs of the said deceased, were entrited to share in the said sum of Rs. 6,56,090/- along with the respondent No. 1 hereir the two appellants instituted TS No. 06/2001 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Bongaigaon, seeking, inter alia a decree for declaration that each of the two plaintiffs and the defendant No. 1 was entitled to get one-third share in the said sum of Rs. 6.56,090/- and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 2 to 5. (i.e. the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 herein) from disbursing the said entire sum of Rs. 6,56,090/- to the defendant-respondent No. 1 on the strength of his nomination.

(3.) While the suit was pending, the plaintiffs also made an application, under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 2 to 5 from disbursing the said amount to the defendant No. 1 without apportioning the shares of the plaintiffs. This application gave rise to Misc. (J) Case No. 105/2001. The defendant No. 1 contested the suit and also resisted the prayer for temporary injunction made by the plaintiffs, the case of the defendant No. 1 being that both the plaintiffs were already married, they were residing with their respective spouses and as they were not dependants on the said deceased and as the defendant No. 1 is the sole surviving member of the family of the said deceased the plaintiffs are not entitled to receive any share in the said sum of Rs.6,56,090/-. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court passed an order on 26-9-2001, wherein it observed to the effect that the defendant No. 1 would receive the amount, if allowed, merely as a nominee and after the defendant No. 1 receives the money, the disbursement thereof can be decided according to the shares, which would be determined in the suit. Because of the conclusion, so reached the learned trial Court turned down the prayer for temporary injunction. Aggrieved by the order, dated 26-9-2001, aforementioned, the plaintiffs have impugned the same in the present appeal.