DWIVEDI, J. :- There was one Dwarka Prasad. He held two policies on his life from the Oriental Government Life Assurance Company Limited. One was effected on October 10, 1945; the other on March 2, 1951. The applicants before us obtained a decree for payment of money against him. They put it into execution. But he died. So they tried to substitute Mata Prasad and Vishwanath Prasad as his legal representatives and to execute the decree by attachment of the amounts payable to them as nominees under the aforesaid policies. The court below rejected the application. Hence this revision.

2. In the policy of 1945 Dwarka Prasad nominated Mata Prasad and Vishwanath Prasad as his nominees on July 11, 1951. It was made on the back of the policy. The company registered it on July 25, 1951. The nomination is made materially in these words: "I ...... nominate ...... to be the persons to whom the moneys secured by the policy shall be paid in the event of my death."

3. In the policy of 1951 the nomination was made on the date the policy was effected. The nomination is expressed materially in these words: "Names of nominees Mata Prasad and Vishwanath Prasad." They will receive the money payable under the policy in the event of his death.

4. On the face of the two policies we have a printed schedule. The schedule has a column in respect of the persons to whom the sum assured is payable. The column reads materially. "The proposer's Assigns or Nominees or his proving Executors or Administrators or other legal Representatives"

5. Presumably Mata Prasad and Vishwanath Prasad are the nephews of Dwarka Prasad. If the amounts payable to them under the two policies constitute a part of the estate of Dwarka Prasad, surely they are his legal representatives, and the decree shall be executed against them to the extent of these amounts; if the said amounts do not form part of the estate of Dwarka Prasad, they are not his legal representatives and the amounts cannot be reached by the decree-holders.

6. Whether the said sums form part of the estate of Dwarka Prasad, not depends, in the first instance, on the implications of certain provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938 (hereinbelow called the Act) under which the policies were issued, and, in the second instance, on the language of the nomination.

7. We shall first turn to the Act. Section 2(11) defines 'life insurance business' as the business of effecting contracts of insurance upon human life. So insurance is a contract between the insurer and the assured. Under the contract the assured is entitled to a certain benefit, that is, to the payment of a definite amount. The contract together with the benefit arising under it forms part of his assets. On his becoming an insolvent it will vest in the Receiver appointed by the Insolvency Court. So the contracts vouched by the two policies formed part of the assets of Dwarka Prasad during his life. Section 38 also shows that the policies were his property. We have now to see whether the contracts together with the benefit arising under it formed part of the estate of Dwarka Prasad at the moment of his death, notwithstanding the nomination in favour of Mata Prasad and Vishwanath Prasad.

8. Section 38 deals with the assignment of policies. The assured may assign, with or without consideration, his policy to anyone. Assignment operates as a transfer inter vivos. It transfers the interest of the assured in the policy to the assignee. After assignment the interest of the assured comes to an end, and the assignee or his legal representative becomes entitled to the money payable under the policy. As at his death, the assured has no interest in the policy, it does not constitute his estate. But Sec.39, which is the key section, does not pass the interest of the assured in the policy to the nominee in the lifetime of the assured.

9. Section 39, in so far as it is material to the case, reads:

"(1) The holder of a policy of life insurance on his own life may nominate the per