Back
1991 Supreme(Mad) 938
High Court of Judicature at Madras
The Honourable Mr. Justice Venkataswami and The Honourable Mr. Justice Abdul Hadi
Narammal (died) and another - Appellant
Versus
Kanthamani and others - Respondents
A.No.636 of 1983
Decided On : 31 December 1991
Headnote:
NOMINATION - CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY - PROVIDENT FUND - INSURANCE - SUCCESSION - NOMINEE - RIGHT TO RECEIVE AMOUNT - BENEFICIAL INTEREST - PERSONAL LAW - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952 - TAMIL NADU CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1961 - INSURANCE ACT, 1938 - EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUNDS SCHEME, 1952 - Held, nomination does not confer 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 authorised 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.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, claiming to be a Class I heir along with the first defendant, claimed is entitled to a share in the properties, both movable and immovable, left by the Ranganathan, along with the first defendant. There are eight schedules in the plaint. first defendant has mentioned in her additional written statement that the plaintiff the amount due under the insurance policy, and that was to be subjected to partition she (first defendant) must be given a half share. In addition to that, she has also pointed that one Vicky motorcycle has been retained by the plaintiff, that it must be valued must be given a half share in that. Further in the additional written statement, defendant has pointed out that a fixed deposit amount in the name of deceased Ranganatan in the Central Bank of India was also available for division.
Finding of the Court:
The court below proceeded as if there was a valid nomination in of the first defendant in so far as the second schedule property is concerned. We do not that the lower court is correct in proceeding on the basis that there was a nomination favour of the first defendant in respect of the second schedule property. Assuming that is a nomination, let us see that is the position-in law.
Issues: Whether the nomination in favour of the first defendant in respect of the second schedule property confers any beneficial interest in the amount payable under the life insurance policy on the death of the assured.
Ratio Decidendi: The nomination only indicates the hand which is authorised 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.
Final Decision: Appeal allowed only in respect of schedule 2 house property and schedule 4 moneys declaring plaintiffs half share in these two schedules. However, there be no order as to costs.
Venkataswami, J.:
The plaintiff in O.S.No.50 of 1982, on the file of the court of Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, has preferred this appeal.
2. Pending disposal of the appeal, the appellant/ plaintiff died and the second respondent (son of the deceased appellant) in the appeal has filed C.M.P.No. 10153 of 1991, claiming be the sole legal representative of the deceased appellant, and praying for transposing as the second appellant in the above appeal. After hearing learned counsel on both have ordered that petition. However, for the sake of convenience, the appellant hereafter referred to as the plaintiff and the contesting first respondent as first defendant.
3. Before going into the facts, it will be useful to narrate the relationship between parties. One Ranganathan was the son of the plaintiff (husband of the first defendant). the death of Ranganathan, the cause of action for the suit has arisen. The second (now the second appellant in this appeal) is the brother of the deceased Ranganathan. third defendant is the brother-in-law of the deceased Ranganathan. The 4th defendant tenant in respect of the second schedule property. The fifth defendant is a co house benefit society. The sixth defendant is a chit fund.
4. The plaintiff, claiming to be a Class I heir along with the first defendant, claimed is entitled to a share in the properties, both movable and immovable, left by the Ranganathan, along with the first defendant. There are eight schedules in the plaint. first defendant has mentioned in her additional written statement that the plaintiff the amount due under the insurance policy, and that was to be subjected to partition she (first defendant) must be given a half share. In addition to that, she has also pointed that one Vicky motorcycle has been retained by the plaintiff, that it must be valued must be given a half share in that. Further in the additional written statement, defendant has pointed out that a fixed deposit amount in the name of deceased Ranganatan in the Central Bank of India was also available for division.
5. Before the court below, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1, and the first examined herself as D.W.I. On the side of the plaintiff, Exs. A-1 to A-4 were marked, the side of the defendants, Exs.B-1 to B-5 were marked. Third party documents marked as Exs.X-1 to X-15.
6. On the basis of the pleadings, evidence and the arguments, the, trial court decree declaring one-fourth share in plaint schedules 1 and 3 in favour of the plaintiff half share in the 7th schedule as well as in the L.I.C. premium and in the fixed pointed out in the additional written statement. In respect of other items, the dismissed.
7. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the present appeal was filed by the plaintiff the second appellant is now continuing the appeal.
8. Mr.E.Padmanabhan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, while narrating facts, though commented about the dismissal of the suit in respect of all items Schedules 1, 3, 7 and two items mentioned in the additional written statement, concentrated and attacked the decree only in respect of Schedules 2 and 4. In other words, we are upon to decide the correctness of the judgment and decree of the court below in respect Schedules 2 and 4. In these circumstances, we do not consider it necessary to elaborately the pleadings and the issue framed thereunder.
9. The second schedule relates to a house bearing Door No.1-C, Lakshmipuram, Bahadhur Nagar, Uppilipalayam village, within Singanallur Municipal limits, and fully described in the schedule. The fourth schedule relates to a sum of Rs.27,910-24 p. representing provident fund and group insurance and gratuity taken by the first defendant from Messrs.SITRA.
10. The main ground on which the claim of the plaintiff was negatived in respect of covered under Schedules 2 and 4 was that the deceased Ranganathan nominated the defendant to receive the benefits and, therefore, to that extent, the plaintiff must
