A nominee under a life insurance policy is merely an agent and has no interest in the estate of the deceased. Therefore, the nominee cannot claim a succession certificate for himself.

( 1 ) THE dispute in this appeal lies within a narrow compass. One Dina Nath Sachan died on May 23, 1973. During his lifetime, Dina Nath Sachan had obtained a life insurance policy for a sum of Rs. 50,000 and the policy is dated April 28, 1971. The deceased left his widow, who is appellant No. 1 before us, and a minor son impleaded as appellant No. 2, namely, Yogesh kumar. He also left four daughters. On or about August 1, 1975, an application for succession certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, was made by Smt. Jagat nandini, appellant No. 1, for herself and as guardian for appellant No. 2 (Yogesh Kumar ). In the application, the four aforesaid daughters were also mentioned against column 3. Inder Pal, the respondent, it appears, was a nominee under the policy; Yogesh Kumar, appellant No. 2, son of dina Nath Sachan, was a co-nominee along with Inder Pal. Succession certificate was granted in favour of the applicant on December 23, 1976. The respondent applied thereafter under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, for revocation of the succession certificate. This application of the respondent has been allowed under the impugned order dated January 17, 1978, passed by the Second Civil Judge, Kanpur, whereas in modification of the succession certificate earlier granted, the court directed that the respondent is entitled to one-half of the decretal amount and has also required the Life Insurance Corporation to pay the amount under the policy accordingly to the respondent.

( 2 ) AGGRIEVED, the appellants have approached this court.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants contends that in the capacity as the nominee, the respondent could have no right to claim succession certificate for himself. It is also urged that the application made by him for revocation is not covered under any of the clauses of Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and that Yogesh Kumar, who, too, was a nominee under the policy, was as well an applicant for the succession certificate. From the side of the respondent it has been argued that the person entitled to receive the amount covered under the policy is the respondent in the capacity as the nominee and in the presence and in whose favour the succession certificate has been granted.

( 4 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, there is no room to doubt any longer that the capacity of the nominee under the life insurance policy is purely that of an agent. He collects the amounts from the insurer and pays it to the persons entitled to receive the same and, as such, gets no interest to the estate of the deceased. He is not even a beneficiary in respect of the estate left by the deceased. This has been made amply clear by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in smt. Sarbati Devi v. Smt. Usha Devi [1984] 55 Comp Cas 214 (SC), which has affirmed the Full bench decision of this court in Raja Ram v. Mata Prasad [1973] 43 Comp Cas 53 (All) [fb]. This proposition indeed is not disputed from the side of the respondent before me. It was submitted, however, that since the respondent is considered as an agent, the succession could not have been issued in favour of the appellants. I am unable to agree. Since the persons entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased would be the heirs under the concerned law in case the assured died intestate, the respondent can lay no claim to any share in the estate. The amount covered under the policy becomes part and parcel of the estate of the deceased and to this estate the persons entitled to recover shall only be those who are heirs either under the personal law governing the same or under a will in case the deceased left any. For the respondent, the averment made in the application which he moved for revocation was that the certificate had been obtained fraudulently inasmuch as it was not disclosed that the premium under the policy was paid out of the private business of the respondent under the be