IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE
Laxmikant Gopalkrishna Shivhare - Appellant
Versus
Shriram Gopalkrishna Shivhare - Respondent
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.80 OF 2023
Decided On : 11-02-2025
(A) Code of Civil Procedure - Section 115 - Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 - Rule 115 and Rule 112 - Succession Certificate - The court upheld the entitlement of the deceased's siblings to 1/3rd share in the amounts left behind, rejecting the nominee's exclusive claim based on the nomination. The court emphasized that a nominee does not inherit the estate but merely has the right to receive the amounts until distributed according to succession laws. (Paras 1, 6, 27, 30)
(B) Nomination - Legal status - The court clarified that a nominee is not equivalent to an heir or legatee and does not possess beneficial interest in the estate of the deceased. The rights of legal heirs are preserved despite the existence of a nomination. (Paras 20, 26)
Facts of the case:
The deceased Shail Shivhare left behind amounts in various accounts, and a dispute arose regarding the distribution of these amounts among her siblings and her nominee, Abhishek. The trial court partially granted the succession certificate, leading to an appeal.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court affirmed the siblings' entitlement to 1/3rd share in the total amounts left behind by the deceased, emphasizing the legal principles governing nominations and succession.
Issues: The main issues were whether the nominee is entitled to the entire amount left by the deceased and the legal implications of nomination versus succession rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that nomination does not confer ownership rights to the nominee and that the estate must be distributed according to the law of succession, preserving the rights of legal heirs.
Result: Revision rejected.
JUDGMENT :
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
1. By invoking the jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the applicants challenge the judgment and order by which the judgment and order passed by learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur is modified and held that the applicants, non- applicant Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to claim 1/3rd share each in the amounts of Rs.10,91,163/-, Rs.3,60,000/- and Rs.60,993.60 total amounting to Rs.15,12,156.60 left behind by deceased Shail Shivhare. By this order, direction was also issued to issue the succession certificate in favour of the applicants and non-applicant Nos.1 and 2.
2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the revision, are as under:
Applicant No.1 in this application namely Laxmikant Gopalkrishna Shivhare and non-applicant No.1 Shriram Gopalkrishna Shivhare are the brothers of deceased Shail who died on 6.5.2013. Applicant No.2 is the son of applicant No.1 namely Abhishek Laxmikant Shivhare and non-applicant No.2 is the sister of deceased Shail. Non-applicant No.1 filed an application for Succession Certificate contending that he and applicant No.1 and non-applicant No.2 are issues of late Gopalkrishna Shivhare. Deceased Ramkrushna was issueless. Deceased Shail was brought up by said Ramkrushna and, therefore, her name was also shown as Shail Ramkrushna Shivhare. Said Ramkrushna was recorded as her guardian. Deceased Shail was serving in Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) in Library Department till retirement i.e. till 31.3.2013. Though she was brought up by Ramkrushna, her name was shown as Shail Gopalkrushan Shivhare. Sister of the applicants and non-applicant Nos.1 and 2 i.e. the deceased had received retiral benefits from the NMC, out of which she has deposited Rs.3,60,000/- on 13.4.2013 in the postal department. The said amount was deposited by her by transferring from her account bearing No.10075948498. She was also holding another account bearing No.20155145021 in the State Bank of India, Gopalnagar. The said account was joint account with Abhishek Laxmikant Shivhare. It is alleged that on the death of Shail, amounts of Rs.45000/- and Rs.45150/-- have been withdrawn by said Abhishek Shivhare. Non-applicant No1. has submitted a letter to the SBI as to the death of Shail. It is alleged that Abhishek is trying to withdraw the said amounts illegally and unauthorizedly. There are other amounts lying in the name of the deceased. The amount of Rs.60993/- is lying in her account in the SBI and amount Rs.3,60,000/- is lying in the post office in her name. The amount of Rs.90150/- is lying in her another account bearing No.20155145021 in the SBI and service benefits are paid to Abhishek to the tune of Rs.10,91,163/-. It is contended that non-applicant Nos.1 and 2 along with applicant no.1 are entitled for 1/3rd share in the said amount and, therefore, he applied for Succession Certificate to withdraw the said amounts.
3. The application was contested by the applicants before the trial court on the ground that deceased Shail was legally adopted by Ramkrushna Shivhare who has taken all necessary care and provided good education to her. As far as receipt of the service benefits and the amounts lying are concerned, the same is admitted by the applicants. It was contended that Abhishek was adopted by her and his name was mentioned as her nominee and, therefore, only Abhishek is entitled for the said amounts.
4. The non-applicant No.2 also contested the application and supported the case of Shriram Gopalkrishna Shivhare, the original applicant.
5. After recording the evidence and appreciating the facts, learned Civil Judge Senior Division allowed the application partly and held that Laxmikant, Shriram, and Santosh are entitled to receive 1/3rd amount only in respect of amount of Rs.60,993/- lying in the bank account bearing No.10075948498.
6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, original applicant Shriram preferred an appeal bearing Regular Civil Appeal No.24
Nomination does not confer ownership rights; legal heirs retain entitlement to the deceased's estate under succession laws.
Nominees do not inherit the estate of the deceased; they must distribute amounts to legal heirs according to succession laws.
A nominee does not inherit the estate of the deceased and must distribute amounts to legal heirs according to succession laws.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a nominee holds the proceeds for and on behalf of all the sharers, and therefore, is bound to share the proceeds with other legal heirs.
Nomination in insurance does not confer absolute rights over terminal benefits, which pertain to legal heirs under succession laws.
Nominee status can impact succession claims; both marriages considered in succession certificate decision despite first marriage's validity.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.