Nomination of a person does not confer any beneficial interest in the property after the death of the person concerned. The nominee is entitled to receive the amount, but the amount so received is to be distributed according to the law of succession.

JUDGMENT

P.K. Lohra, J. - Appellant-Defendant, aggrieved by the judgment & decree dated 8th of January, 2019 passed by Addl. District Judge, Deedwana, District Nagaur (for short, 'learned trial Court'), has preferred this appeal. The learned trial Court, by the impugned judgment, decreed suit of first respondent-plaintiff for declaration and perpetual injunction.

2. The facts, apposite for the purpose of this appeal, are that first respondent-plaintiff instituted a civil suit against appellant and other respondents. It is, inter-alia, averred in the plaint that respondent-plaintiff's pre-deceased brother Kishna Ram and sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Smt. Soni Devi, jointly deposited handsome amount with State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Ladnu Branch as Fixed Deposit/Term Deposit. The details of the fixed deposits were also mentioned in the plaint amounting to Rs.6,51,000. Besides that, it is also averred that there are savings accounts in their names No.61012988796 and 51057703815 respectively wherein certain amount is lying. In the plaint, factum of death of Kishna Ram on 29th of September, 2006 and Soni Devi on 8th December, 2006 is also pleaded. The respondent-plaintiff also averred in the plaint that she is the lone successor of both the deceased persons inasmuch as Late Kishna Ram was her real brother, who died issueless. It is also pleaded that there is no surviving brother of deceased Kishna Ram and Soni Devi and both of them died intestate.

3. The fact about death of Jiyaram somewhere in the year 1958-60 is also pleaded in the plaint. The respondent-plaintiff also stated in the plaint that Kishna Ram and Chhoti Devi lived together for almost 20 years and due to serious acrimony and disputes the family became indebted. In the year 1978, Kishna Ram and legal heirs of Chhoti Devi settled their family dispute and as a consequence thereof mother of respondent No.2 to 5 executed a relinquish deed in favour of Kishna Ram on 6th of July, 1978. It is also averred that the amount lying in the fixed deposits is received by Late Kishna Ram from his ancestral property and therefore Chhoti Devi or his daughters are having no right in the said amount. In substance, the respondent-plaintiff pleaded that after death of Soni Devi, being only surviving heirs of Late Kishna Ram, she is entitled to receive the amount lying in the fixed deposits.

4. Castigating appellant-defendant for his dubious and fraudulent act, it is averred in the plaint that he got his name entered in the Bank as nominee in respect of the amount lying in fixed deposits. As per version of respondent-plaintiff, the fixed deposits/term deposits were in the joint name of Late Kishna Ram and Soni Devi, therefore, she was not authorized to nominate anyone. Moreover, the thumb impression of Late Soni Devi was also obtained by appellant Ganesha Ram when she was seriously ill and even unable to speak. The respondent-plaintiff specifically pleaded that at the time of signing the form nominating appellant Ganesha Ram, Soni Devi was not in a sound state of mind so as to take a decision. It is also pleaded in the plaint that in connection with the aforesaid fixed deposits an endeavour was earlier made by Ganesha Ram to obtain succession certificate on the basis of nomination but the same was declined by Addl. District Judge, Deedwana. The entire suit of the respondent-plaintiff was based on Section 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act.

5. On behalf of respondent No.2 and legal heirs of respondent No.5 written statement was filed admitting all the averments with a prayer to grant reliefs to the respondent-plaintiff. The other respondents, i.e., respondent No.3, 4 and appellant, contested the suit by filing their written statement. It is inter-alia averred in the reply that appellant being nominee is entitled to receive the amount lying in fixed deposits. As per version of the appellant and two other respondents, Bhanwarlal respondent No.6 filed a suit for declaring him as adopted son of Kishna