Smt. Jaya Devi vs Smt. Arti Jha
2021 Latest Caselaw 2134 Jhar

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    (Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
                           M.A. No. 56 of 2020
                                 ......

1.Smt. Jaya Devi

2.Nitendra Jha ....... Appellants Versus Smt. Arti Jha ......Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through : Video Conferencing) For the Appellant : Mr. Onkar Nath Tiwary, Advocate For the Respondents :

05/Dated: 30/06/2021.

Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Onkar Nath Tiwary. The instant Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 07.12.2019 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Doghar in Succession Certificate Case No.14 of 2014 whereby the applicant's application for grant of certificate of succession has been allowed with liberty to the parties to take appropriate legal recourse before the regular Civil/Family court and in the case any parties take such recourse the finding recorded by the Court in this order shall not have any binding effect on the said court and that will take independent decision on the basis of evidence adduced before the court concerned.

Learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties in the court below Smt. Jaya Devi, W/o Late Yamuna Jha and Nitendra Jha, S/o Late Yamuna Jha has submitted that learned Tribunal has wrongly granted Succession Certificate in favour of the Smt. Arti Jha (applicant), whose marriage was solemnized with deceased- Dipendra Kumar Jha posted in Jharkhand Jaguar Police at Ranchi, but the marriage has not consummated.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that Jasidih P.S. Case No.446 of 2013 was registered under Sections 364, 120-B/34, 302 and 201 IPC, but admittedly in the said case, Arti Jha or her brother have not been charge- sheeted by the police.

Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that since the marriage has not been consummated and the appellant, Smt. Jaya Devi has also lost her son, as such, Succession Certificate ought to have been granted solely in favour of mother of the deceased, but the court has failed to do so.

Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that 50% benefits has been granted in all financial matters to Smt. Jaya Devi including LIC Policy No.525332920, which may remain intact.

Considering the submission of the appellants and perusing the impugned order, it appears that deceased- Dipendra Kumar Jha, posted at Jaguar Police at Ranchi was killed on 21.11.2013, for which an FIR has been lodged as Jasidih P.S. Case No.446 of 2013 under Sections 364, 120-B/34, 302 and 201 IPC, but admittedly the applicant, Smt. Arti Jha or any member of her family have not been charge-sheeted. From perusal of the record, it appears that deceased has LIC Policy No.525332920, having value of Rs.5 lacs in which Nitendra Jha, younger brother of the deceased was nominee and after death of Dipendra Kumar Jha his wife Smt. Arti Jha, applied for death- cum-retrial benefits and other benefits under law, but she was asked to bring a Succession Certificate.

It appears that marriage between the parties is admitted and only objection, which has been raised by the appellants is that marriage has not consummated. It appears to the court that consummation of the marriage is nothing, which can be said by the mother-in-law or brother-in-law, but that can only be said by the husband and wife. As such, since the marriage was a valid marriage, Smt. Arti Jha is entitled for Succession Certificate in accordance with law being the wife, Class-I heir, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of MANU/SC/1350/2009 : 2010 AIR SCW 121, Chaillamma vs. Tilaga.

The Apex Court reiterated the same principle in the case of "Hardial Devi Ditta Vs. Janki Das and Anr.", reported in AIR 1928 Lahore 773, it has been held that, "Nomination would not amount to a Will or a gift or trust in favour of the nominee. The nominee would only get the right to receive the amount and he holds the amount for the benefit of the heirs."

Further the Apex Court reiterated the same principle in the case of "D. Mohanavelu Mudaliar and Anr. Vs. Indian Insurance & Banking Corporation Ltd. Salem and Anr.", reported in AIR 1957 Mad 115 the scope of Section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938 was considered and the Court has held as under, "So far as nomination is concerned we do not see any appreciable difference between the English and American Laws on the one hand, and what obtains in our country.

According to the English Law the payee or the nominee is nothing more than an agent to receive the money, which money remains as the property of the assured and at his disposal during his life time and on his death forms part of the estate. The result is that the payee or the nominee takes no beneficial interest in it."

Further the Apex Court reiterated the same principle in the case of "Ramballav Dhandhania Vs. Gangadhar Nathmall", reported in AIR 1956 Cal. 275, the Court has held that nomination only indicates the person who should receive the money when the owner dies. The receiver of money is not the owner of the money. He is only authorized to collect money. The nominee does not become the owner of the money. Section 39 (6) of Insurance Act uses the words "shall be payable" to such nominee. Thus, the Insurance Act does no more than to make the nominee, a receiver to receive the money from the insurance policy, without deciding the question of title. The said view has been affirmed by the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in "Sarojini Amma Vs. Neelakanta Pillai", reported in AIR 1961 Kerala 126.

In view of the above judgments so far nominee, Nitendra Jha is concerned, he is only entitled to receive as custodian the same so as to hand- over to the rightful claimants.

Accordingly the instant Miscellaneous Appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed, in terms of the Certificate granted by the learned District Judge.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) R.S.