JUDGMENT

1. By the instant appeal, under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC, petitioners have challenged order dated 6th of July, 2018, passed by District Judge, Sirohi (for short, learned Court below). By the order impugned, learned Court below, while considering application of respondents Nos. 2 to 4 under Section 151 CPC allowed the same and directed the respondent Life Insurance Corporation of India not to disburse the claim of insurance flowing from the life insurance policy in the name of Late Ghanshyam Nagora.

2. The application aforesaid is filed by respondents Nos. 2 to 4 inter-alia alleging therein that they are wife, daughter and son of deceased Ghanshyam Nagora and as such are entitled to receive his insurance claim as Class-I legal heirs. Although before the learned Court below legitimacy of matrimony between Ghanshyam Nagora and second respondent Smt. Jyoti Nagora is seriously disputed by the appellants but the learned Court below, while refraining to make any observations about legality of marriage, granted indulgence to them by stating that validity of marriage too cannot defeat the right of children in accordance with law of inheritance. The learned Court below has observed that while it is true that decree for dissolution of marriage between Ghanshyam and respondent No. 6 is sub-judice before this Court in appeal but this fact can simply have ramification on the legality of marriage of Ghanshaym with second respondent without disturbing rights of inheritance from his estate available to the children.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. Mr. Vishal Singhal, learned counsel for the appellants in support of his arguments has placed reliance on Section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938 as amended w.e.f. 20th March 2015 under caption "The Insurance Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015". His contention is that appellant No. 1 being nominee is entitled for the insurance claim.

5. Per contra, Mr. Shreyansh Mardia, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that mere nomination in the insurance policy cannot change the course of succession and therefore being wife and children of Late Ghanshyam Nagora, they are entitled to receive proceeds of life insurance policy. Counsel for respondent No. 6 too has supported the impugned order.

6. At the outset, it may be observed that essentially the order passed by the learned Court below is an injunctory order but then in passing the same, learned Court below has invoked Section 151 CPC and therefore maintainability of this appeal itself under Order 43 Rule 1(r) is seriously questionable. Under Order 43 Rule 1(r), any order passed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC is appealable.

7. There remains no quarrel that in appropriate cases Court can exercise its inherent powers to meet the ends of justice and render justice between parties and further it can also pass an order in the nature of injunctory relief. Reliance in this behalf can be placed on a decision of Supreme Court in Tanusree Basu & Ors. v. Ishani Prasad Basu & Ors. [(2008) 4 SCC 791] .

8. If the impugned order is examined critically, then it can very well be said that it is a very short order without discussing facts in detail. However, in the backdrop of lis involved in the petition under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, if the entire amount of proceeds of insurance policy are disbursed to the appellants, the whole purpose of the petition would be defeated. Therefore, the learned Court below has rightly issued direction to the respondent Life Insurance Corporation not to disburse the amount of insurance policy to the appellants solely on the ground that appellant No. 1 is nominee. Supreme Court in Sarbati Devi & Ors. v. Usha Devi [(1984) 1 SCC 424] , while analyzing unamended Section 39 of the Insurance Act discussed right of a nominee threadbare and clarified that Section 39 is not intended to act as a third mode of succession provided by the statute. The Court held:

"We shall now proceed to analyse the provisions of Section 39 o