IMPORTANT POINT
The nominee has the right to receive the amount but does not become the exclusive owner, and the money received by the nominee would devolve as per rules of succession. The nomination process does not override the succession laws.

ORDER :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. This civil revision preferred under Section 384(3) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is directed against the order passed by the appellate court, by which, the appeal of respondent No.2 & 3 has been rejected and cross-objection has been allowed holding that the respondent No.2 & 3 are entitled for the amount deposited in saving account and the petitioner being the nominee is not entitled for the said amount, which is sought to be challenged in this civil revision.

2. Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the succession court as well as appellate court both have grossly erred in holding that the nominee has no right and title over the property left by Chamar Singh Malakar and his daughters i.e. respondent No.2 & 3 are entitled for the entire amount and accordingly, the finding recorded by both the courts below is perverse to the record.

3. Mr. Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 & 3 would submit that both the courts below are absolutely justified in granting the order in favour of the respondents No.2 & 3 as they are daughters of late Chamar Singh Malakar excluding the petitioner/ nominee, who is only trustee of that amount, in light of various decisions rendered by the Supreme Court including the recent decision in the matter of Shakti Yezdani & Another v. Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar & Others, (2024) 242 Comp Cas 497.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

5. It is not in dispute that late Chamar Singh Malakar was having Saving Account No.143376 in Gramin Bank in which he has deposited Rs.4,84,000/- and made the petitioner Mahesh Ram as nominee, however, unfortunately he died on 12/13.09.2009 leaving the petitioner as nominee and two daughters respondents No.2 & 3 and after his death, the petitioner has claimed the entire amount being the nominee exclusively, which the trial court has partly granted giving him 1/3 share in said deposited amount, which the appellate Court while allowing cross-objection filed by respondent No.2 & 3 held that the nominee is only a trustee and he would not get any amount and held that the respondent No.2 & 3 are entitled for entire amount being the daughters of deceased, which has been questioned in this revision.

6. The legal position is no longer res integra and it has been held by several judgments of the Supreme Court that the nominee has only right to receive the amount lying in the account of deceased/ depositer; however, he doesn’t have become exclusive owner thereof and the money received by the nominee would devolve as per rules of Succession. In the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Shakti Yezdani (supra), their Lordships in paragraph 25 & 26 held as under :

“25. In an illuminating list of precedents, this Court as well as several High Courts have dealt with the concept of ‘nomination’ under legislations like the Government Savings Certificate Act 1959, the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the Life Insurance Act, 1939 and the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It would be apposite to refer to what the Court said on nomination, in reference to these legislations: