Back
High Court Of Delhi
LILAWATI SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
Decided On : 09/16/1998
BANKING REGULATIONS ACT - NOMINATION - LEGAL EFFECT - SUCCESSION - LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION - JURISDICTION OF PROBATE COURT - PROBATE COURT - JURISDICTION - TITLE TO PROPERTY - PROBATE COURT - JURISDICTION - DISPUTE AS TO TITLE - PROBATE COURT - JURISDICTION - CAVEAT - PROBATE COURT - JURISDICTION - ADVERSE POSSESSION - PROBATE COURT - JURISDICTION - CREDITOR - PROBATE COURT - JURISDICTION - FRAUD - PROBATE COURT - JURISDICTION - POSSESSION - PROBATE COURT - JURISDICTION - TITLE - PROBATE COURT - JURISDICTION - EXECUTOR - PROBATE COURT - JURISDICTION - ADMINISTRATOR - PROBATE COURT - JURISDICTION - DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS - PROBATE COURT - JURISDICTION - APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR - PROBATE COURT - JURISDICTION - REMUNERATION OF ADMINISTRATOR - PROBATE COURT - JURISDICTION - EXPENSES OF ADMINISTRATOR - PROBATE COURT - JURISDICTION - POSTING OF MATTER FOR DIRECTION - PROBATE COURT - JURISDICTION - QUASHING OF FIR AND PROCEEDINGS - CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS - ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW - FILING OF COMPLAINT - DELAY - CIVIL LIABILITY - BREACH OF AGREEMENT - DISHONEST OR FRAUDULENT INTENTION - ABSENCE OF - CRIMINAL INTENTION - ABSENCE OF - INDUCEMENT OR DECEPTION - ABSENCE OF - CIVIL ACTION - AVAILABILITY OF - CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS - NON-MAINTAINABILITY OF.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Harikishan Singh, left behind substantial items of money and an immovable property. He died on 25th January, 1996. His widow, Mrs. Leelawati Singh, and three sons, namely, Shri Ashok Singh, Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, and Shri Vivek Kumar Singh, survived him. The petitioners, Mrs. Leelawati Singh and Shri Ashok Singh, prayed for the grant of Letters of Administration in respect of the estate of late Shri Harikishan Singh. The third respondent, Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, opposed the application. The main point to be considered before the grant of Letters of Administration was the effect of the nominations made by the deceased in various transactions and whether the nominee or nominees could claim absolute interest in the money payable in those transactions.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that a mere nomination made under Section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938, does not have the effect of conferring on the nominee any beneficial interest in the amount payable under the life insurance policy on the death of the assured. The nomination only indicates the hand which is authorized to receive the amount on the payment of which the insurer gets a valid discharge of its liability under the policy. The amount, however, can be claimed by the heirs of the assured in accordance with the law of succession governing them.
Issues: 1. Whether the nomination made by the deceased in various transactions conferred absolute interest in the money payable in those transactions to the nominee or nominees? 2. Whether the Probate Court has jurisdiction to go into the question of title to the property?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A mere nomination made under Section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938, does not have the effect of conferring on the nominee any beneficial interest in the amount payable under the life insurance policy on the death of the assured. The nomination only indicates the hand which is authorized to receive the amount on the payment of which the insurer gets a valid discharge of its liability under the policy. The amount, however, can be claimed by the heirs of the assured in accordance with the law of succession governing them. 2. The Probate Court does not have jurisdiction to go into the question of title to the property.
Final Decision: The application for grant of Letters of Administration was allowed to the extent that all the monies payable to the nominees in respect of the transactions by late Harikishan Singh would form part of his estate and would come to the common pool to be made available for distribution among his heirs under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1955. The Court also appointed an Administrator to collect all the monies and to make division of the house property among the heirs. The Court further directed that the Administrator be paid a sum of Rs. 10,000 towards initial remuneration and that the expenses required for collecting the monies from the various institutions be paid by the petitioners.
( 1 ) SHRI Harikishan Singh, who had left benind substantial items of money and an immovable property, had left behind his widow, Mrs. Leelawati Singh, and three sons, namely, Shri Ashok Singh. 5hri vijay Kumar Singh and Shri Vivek Kumar Singh. He died on the 25th of January, 1996. His widow, Mrs. Leelawati Singh is the first petitioner. Shri Ashok Single, the el dest son is the second petitioner. Shri Vijay Kumar Singh the second son is the second respondent. Shri Vivek Kumar Singh, the third son is the third respondent.
( 2 ) THE petitioner had prayed for the grant of Letters of Administration in respect of the estate of late Shri Harikishan Singh. The second petitioner supports the petition. The third petitioner, Vijay Kumar Singh. opposes the application for grant of Letters of Administration.
( 3 ) IN Annexure b to the petition the details about the immovable and movable assets left behind by the deceased Harikishan Singh, which are given as under :
( 4 ) THE liabilities mentioned in the petition are as under: Sh. Hari Krishan Singh had died leaving the following liabilities/expenses unprovided:
( 5 ) THE third respondent had given the details about the movable assets and the names of nominees. They are as follows:
( 6 ) THE deceased, Harikishan Singh had a deposit of Rs. 32,36,252. 75 under the Multi Deposit Scheme with Citi Bank, New Delhi bearing Deposit Receipt No. 028156-5002-00 which was due for payment on the 19th of February, 1996. There the nominee was the third respondent. The third respondent had drawn the money and he had appropriated the amount to himself on the basis that after the death of the father, Harikishan Singh he became entitled to the money absolutely.
( 7 ) THE petitioners sought for a direction to the third respondent to deposit the sum of Rs. 32,36,252. 75 drawn by him from the Citi Bank. That was opposed by the third respondent on the ground mentioned above. The main point to be considered before the grant of Letters of Ad ministration is: What is the effect of the nominations made by the deceased, Harikishan Singh, in various transactions and whether the nominee or nominees could claim absolute interest in the money payable in those transactions?
( 8 ) MR. Pramod B. Agarwala, the learned Counsel for the third respondent, submitted that having regard to the provisions of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949, the effect of nomination is that the nominee becomes the absolute owner and it would amount to a testamentary disposition and the third respondent is fully justified in drawing the sum of Rs. 32,36,252. 75. The third respondent also submitted that the petitioners are in possession of the enjoyment of the house property and, therefore, pending the consideration of the question, the petitioners cannot claim any right in the amount drawn by the third respondent. The relevant provision is Section 45za of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and the same is as under:
"nomination for payment of depositors money.- (1) Where a deposit is held by a banking company to the credit of one of more persons, the depositor or, as the case may be all the depositors together, may nominate, in the prescribed manner, one person to whom in the event of the death of the sole depositor or the death of all the depositors, the amount of deposit may be returned by the banking company. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any disposition, whether testamentary or otherwise, in respect of such deposit, where a nomination made in the prescribed manner purports to confer on any person the right to receive the amount of deposit from the banking company, the nominee shall, on the death of the sole depositor or, as the case may be, on the death of all the depositors, become entitled to ali the rights of the sole depositor or, as the case may be, of the depositors, in relation to such deposit to the exclusion of all other persons, unless the nomination is varied
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
