JUDGMENT :

The present civil misc. appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 10.9.2001 passed by the learned District Judge, Merta, District Nagaur in Civil Misc. (Succession) Application No.72/1998, whereby the learned trial court partly allowed the application of the appellant.

2. The facts in nutshell are that the appellant preferred an application before the learned trial court under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act stating therein that he is the husband of late Smt. Santosh. His wife was a constable in the Rajasthan Police bearing belt no.206, who unfortunately expired on 2.6.1998. The said application was preferred for getting the succession certificate in order to claim for the balance and dues of his wife i.e., the amount towards Provident Fund (Rs.15,000/-), State Insurance (Rs.18,000/-), claim amount (Rs.15,000/-) and Police Valent Fund (Rs.50,000/-) and for getting the amount of Life Insurance Policy bearing no.500257308 in total a sum of Rs.1,16,000/-. The appellant also stated that before his marriage with the deceased Santosh, she was a government servant and therefore, in her service record, obviously, she has made her father as her nominee.

3. The respondents claiming themselves to be the successors of late Smt. Santosh filed their reply and stated that they being the nominee of the deceased are entitled for the amount of Life Insurance Corporation Policy and State Insurance Scheme. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed three issues and while deciding the application, held that the appellant is entitled to receive succession certificate only for the amount of provident fund to the tune of Rs.15,000/-and claim amount to the tune of Rs.18,000/-and he is not entitled to receive the succession certificate in other heads and the remaining amount.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned trial court has committed grave illegality while partly allowing the application. It is submitted that it is the appellant who is the sole successor and legal heir of his deceased wife. It is further submitted that because of the fact that merely before marriage, the deceased nominated her father, may not curtail his rights to receive the amount in question as her sole successur. Learned counsel submits that mere nomination does not have the effect of conferring to the nominee any beneficial interest in the amount payable under the LIC Policy and State Insurance Fund, on death of insurer. The nomination only indicates the hand which is authorized to receive the amount on 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. Therefore, the learned trial court committed grave illegality while refusing to issue succession certificate to the appellant with respect to the amount of LIC Policy and State Insurance Fund. In support of his arguments, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:

(i) Smt. Sarbati Devi & Anr. Vs. Smt. Usha Devi reported in AIR 1984 SC 346

(ii) Vishin N. Khanchandani (Shri) & Anr. Vs. Vidhya Lachmandas Khanchandani & Anr. reported in 2000 DNJ (SC) 401.

(iii) Shipra Sengupta Vs. Mridul Sengupta & Ors reported in (2009) 10 SCC 680.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the learned trial court has rightly passed the order impugned and there is no illegality in it. It is submitted that the rule gives right to the nominee to collect the insurance money even on its maturity in the event of the policy holder's death. Thus, it is submitted that the present civil misc. appeal may be rejected.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record as well as the judgm