Nominees under Section 39(7) of the Insurance Act have a beneficial interest in insurance proceeds, but this does not override the applicable succession laws if inconsistent. Decisions on such matters require careful evaluation of both statutes.

JUDGMENT :

R.M. JOSHI, J.

Heard Mr. M. G. Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. G. Baheti and Mr. Rishi Chhabda, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. Nayan Mirpuri, learned Counsel h/f Mr. P. P. Kothari, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.4 and 5. None appeared for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4.

2. In Writ Petition No. 240/2024 there is a challenge to the order dated 21/3/2023 passed below Exhibit-395 [which according to the Petitioners is infact passed below application (Exhibit-387)]. Whereas, order dated 21/3/2023 passed below Exhibit-387 [which is claimed to have been passed below Exhibit-395] is taken exception to in Writ Petition No. 241/2024.

3. By consent of both sides, these Petitions are heard finally at the stage of admission and decided by common Judgment, since similar questions of facts and law are involved therein.

4. The issue involved in these Petitions is, as to whether the impugned orders dated 21/3/2023 passed by the trial court rejecting application for withdrawal of the amount deposited in the Court towards the insurance claim, in the light of the provisions of Section 39 (7) of INSURANCE ACT , 1938 and rejection of claim of withdrawal of other amounts on the basis of Will as well as Section 8 of HINDU SUCCESSION ACT , 1956 (for short, ‘the Act’) would be sustainable. In the context thereto, learned Counsel for the parties agitated the issue as to whether the provisions of Section 38(7) of the Act, would override the provisions governing law of succession applicable to the parties or not.

5. The facts which led to the filing of these Petitions can be narrated in brief as under :

(i) There is no dispute that Special Civil Suit No. 2/2022 came to be filed by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 amongst other reliefs seeking partition of the suit properties, which includes the maturity amount of life insurance policies of late Pravin Maloo as well as share in other properties of deceased Pravin, who died on 7/9/2021. The relationship between the parties is also not in dispute. Plaintiff No.1 is widow and Plaintiff No.2 is son of the deceased. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are his daughters and Defendant no.3 is mother of Pravin. Plaintiffs as well as Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are Class-I heirs of deceased Pravin. According to the Plaintiffs, Pravin divorced his first wife Suneeta and permanent lumpsum alimony was was paid to her. Thereafter Plaintiff No.1 married to Pravin and Plaintiff No.2 is begotten from this valid wedlock.

(ii) The Plaintiffs challenged Will dated 19/4/2018, propounded by the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 being executed by the deceased in their favour; on the grounds that it does not bear signature of Pravin and there are no special circumstances to exclude Plaintiffs from the property etc. It is, thus, clear that the issue as to whether Will pronounced by the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 is final Will of the deceased, is the matter of evidence to be decided by the trial court. Needless to say that the decision of the said issue would have bearing on the rights claimed by the parties and final decree to be passed.

(iii) The Defendant Nos.1 and 2 on the basis of their nomination in the insurance policies and Will executed by Pravin bequeathing the properties to them, claim share therein and seek direction for withdrawal of the said amount deposited by insurers as interim relief.

(iv) Record indicates that out of total number of 23 policies, Sr. Nos.1 to 14 and 20 to 22 are taken prior to year 2015. The policies at Sr. Nos.15 to 19