SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Bom) 872

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE URMILA SACHIN JOSHI- PHALKE
Laxmikant Gopalkrishna Shivhare - Appellant
Versus
Shriram Gopalkrishna Shivhare - Respondent
CRA/80/2023
Decided On : 11-02-2025

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Shri R.D.Bhuibhar, Counsel for Applicants
For the Respondent:Shri Abhishek S.Shukla with Shri Suresh G.Shukla, Advocates for Non-applicant No.1. Shri P.S.Gawai, Counsel for Non-applicant No.2.

Nominees do not inherit the estate of the deceased; they must distribute amounts to legal heirs according to succession laws.

Headnote:

(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 115 - Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 - Rule 115 and Rule 116 - Succession Certificate - Legal heirs entitled to 1/3rd share in amounts left by deceased - Nominee does not inherit estate but holds amounts for legal heirs - Court upheld lower court's decision affirming legal heirs' rights over nominee's claims. (Paras 1, 6, 27, 28)

(B) Nomination vs. Succession - Nominee's rights are limited to receiving amounts; does not confer ownership or beneficial interest - Legal heirs retain rights under succession laws. (Paras 20, 26)

Facts of the case:
The applicants challenged a lower court's decision regarding the distribution of amounts left by the deceased Shail Shivhare, who died on 6.5.2013. The deceased had various accounts and service benefits, with disputes arising over the nominee's entitlement versus the legal heirs' claims.

Findings of Court:
The court affirmed that the legal heirs are entitled to 1/3rd share each in the amounts totaling Rs.15,12,156.60, rejecting the nominee's exclusive claim.

Issues: The main issues were whether the nominee is entitled to the entire amount and the legal standing of the nominee versus the legal heirs.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a nominee does not inherit the estate and must distribute amounts to legal heirs according to succession laws, reaffirming that nomination does not confer beneficial interest.

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.2

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top