The main legal point established in the judgment is that nomination under Section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938 does not confer any beneficial interest on the nominee, and the amount payable under the policy becomes part of the deceased's estate. The court also emphasized the distinction between a "beneficial nominee" and a "collector nominee" introduced by the 2015 Amendment.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. - The Appellants have filed the present Regular First Appeal assailing the preliminary decree dated 16.09.2020 passed by the Trial Court in CS No. 390/2019. Appellant No. 1 herein is Defendant No. 1 before the Trial Court and Respondent No. 1 is the Plaintiff. Defendants No. 2 & 3 are minor children of Defendant No. 1 and are Appellants No.2 & 3 herein, whereas Respondent No. 2 is the husband of Respondent No.1 and was Defendant No. 4 before the Trial Court. Appellant No. 1 was married to Late Sh. Vineet Huria and Respondent No. 1 is his mother.

2. The facts germane for deciding the present appeal are that Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff filed a suit for partition or separation of shares of Respondent No. 1, recovery of Rs. 54,14,077/-, rendition of accounts and permanent injunction against the Appellants herein and Respondent No. 2, father of Late Shri Vineet Huria.

3. Respondent No. 1 pleaded that her deceased son late Shri Vineet Huria and Respondent No. 2 were sole and absolute joint owners of property bearing No. MIG Flat No. 35, Block-A, Type-B, Pocket-3, Bindapur, Dwarka, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property'). Shri Vineet Huria died on 11.07.2018 intestate and left behind four Class-I heirs i.e. (a) Respondent No. 1/mother (b) Appellant No. 1/wife (c) Appellants No. 2 & 3/ son and daughter.

4. It was further pleaded that Respondent No. 1 inherited the estate of her deceased son, as he died intestate, to the extent of 1/4th share in his immovable and moveable assets and Appellants were entitled to the remaining 3/4th share. Her deceased son was in a high income group, with numerous properties, including moveable and immovable, in his own name and in the name of his wife and children, besides investments in Demat and Mutual Funds etc., the details whereof were not in the knowledge of Respondent No.1 and needed to be ascertained and identified for partition.

5. It was also averred that the deceased son of Respondent No. 1 had 50% share in the flat at Dwarka, apart from various insurance policies. After his demise, Appellant No. 1 received substantial cash amounts totaling to Rs. 3,12,56,311/- on account of insurance policies, Provident Fund and CGHS medical reimbursement benefits etc. Appellant No.1 was legally obliged to share 1/4th with Respondent No. 1, i.e., Rs. 78,14,077/-, whereas she parted only with a sum of Rs. 24,00,000/-.

6. Upon being served with the summons in the suit, Appellants filed their written statement. In the interregnum, vide order dated 13.05.2019 the learned Trial Court directed the Appellants and Respondent No. 2 to maintain status quo with respect to possession of flat at Dwarka and also restrained the Appellants from expending the cash amounts received, as aforesaid.

7. The Appellants, amongst various pleas on merits, in the written statement, took a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that with respect to the moveable assets of the deceased, succession certificate was required from a Court of competent jurisdiction under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Preliminary objections regarding pecuniary jurisdiction, Court fee and misjoinder of causes of action were also taken in the written statement.

8. On merits, it was pleaded that the suit property was purchased exclusively out of the funds invested by the deceased husband of Appellant No. 1 and the name of Respondent No. 2 was added in the sale deed out of respect. The entire expenditure on the home furnishing etc. including water electricity bills, was incurred by the deceased. In a nutshell, it was the case of the Appellants that Respondent No. 2 was merely an ostensible owner to the share of 50% of the suit property and not the real owner.

9. It was further pleaded in the written statement that in complete discharge of their share in the suit property Respondents No. 1 & 2 had accepted payment of Rs. 24,00,000/- from Appellant No. 1 towards half share of the suit pro