Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arun Kumr Singh vs Smt. Jaya Singh on 5 August, 2024
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
1 RP-1216-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 5 th OF AUGUST, 2024
REVIEW PETITION No. 1216 of 2022
ARUN KUMR SINGH
Versus
SMT. JAYA SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms.Udita Maindiretta - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Suresh Agrawal, Shri Rohit Pegwar & Shri A.P.Singh - Advocate for the
respondent No.1.
ORDER
This review petition has been filed seeking review of order dated
22.9.2022 passed in Civil Revision No.38/2021 [Arun Kumar Singh Vs.
Smt.Jaya Singh and others] whereby the civil revision filed by the
applicant/revisionist has been dismissed.
2. The basic bare facts of the case are that Smt.Jaya Singh wife of
deceased-Chetan Singh had filed a Succession Case [MJC No.74/17
(Smt.Jaya Singh Vs. General Public and 08 others)] under section 372 of the
Indian Succession Act for grant of succession certificate in regard to
movable and immovable properties of her deceased-husband (Chetan Singh)
in the Court of Fifth Civil Judge Class-I, Bhopal. The learned trial Court
declined to grant succession certificate in respect of immovable properties of
deceased-Chetan Singh but granted succession certificate relating to amount
deposited in account of Kotak Mahindra Bank bearing Account
2 RP-1216-2022
No.04410100267939 and for the benefits accrued to her late husband in
Employees Provident Fund. The main contestants in the said proceedings
were Arun Kumar Singh (father-in-law of Smt.Jaya Singh and father of
deceased-Chetan Singh) and Abhishek Singh (brother of deceased). The
main ground of defence of non-applicants No.2 to 9 was that deceased had
made nomination in favour of his father and brother.
3. In the trial Court, marriage of applicant-Smt.Jaya Singh Chouhan
with deceased-Chetan Singh Chouhan is not in dispute. It is also not in
dispute that marriage took place on 17.1.2000 and husband-Chetan expired
on 17.5.2017, when he was working in Kotak Mahindra Bank but there is no
date of his joining in service. Applicant-Smt.Jaya Singh has made deposition
in support of her application. Non-applicants No.8 & 9, namely, Arun Kumar
Singh & Abhishek Singh who are father-in-law & brother-in-law of the
applicant have deposed in support of their case. Other parties have not come
to the Court and made statements alongwith documents regarding date of
joining of service, date of nomination and as to when at the time of
nomination which form was filled, whether subsequently any amendment
was made in nomination, whether nomination was made before or after
amendment in section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938 in the year 2015.
4. The learned trial Court minutely considered all the arguments, in
which, it also held that nomination was made when the deceased was
unmarried and after marriage, if any, nomination was made in favour of
father and brother then they would only hold the money/amount as a Trustee
and cannot over-ride the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, in which, first
3 RP-1216-2022
right over the amount would be of wife who would come under the Class-I
heir. On an appeal by appellant the Third Additional District Judge, Bhopal
in Misc.Civil Appeal No.48/2019 [Arung Kumar Singh Vs. Smt.Jaya Singh
and others] dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the trial Court.
This Court also in Civil Revision No.38/2021 [Arun Kumar Singh Vs.
Smt.Jaya Singh and others] dismissed the revision by order under review.
5. Now, this review of order passed in civil revision on the ground
that learned first appellate Court as well as this Court while passing order
failed to appreciate the provisions of nomination as provided under section
39 of the Insurance Act, 1938 as amended vide Insurance (Amendment) Act,
2015, various decisions have been referred support of the case. One of such
decision is by Delhi High Court in the case of Shewta Singh Huria Vs.
Santosh Huria, 2021 SCC Online Del 2492, in which, it is held that amended
Law provides that nominee no longer remains a mere receiver nominee but is
a beneficiary nominee.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant also referred to the judgment of
Rajasthan High Court in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. General Public
and others [S.B.Civil Misc.Appeal No.27/2018 decided on 05.4.2019]
wherein same view was taken and it has been held that nominee of Insurance
policy receive the amount of insurance and legal heirs of assured can claim
their share as per law of succession. However, after amendment of year 2015
the nominee alone gets the amount on account of death of assured and no
other person can raise claim with regard to said amount. Learned counsel for
review petitioner also submitted that there are two types of nomination, one
4 RP-1216-2022
is collective nomination and another is beneficial nomination.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted
that this controversy has been set at rest in the case of Shakti Yezdani Vs.
Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar, (2024) 4 SCC 642.
8. In the case of Shakti Yezdani (supra) in paragraph 41 the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has been held as under:-
"41. A consistent view appears to have
been by the courts, while interpreting the
related provisions of nomination under
different statutes. It is clear from the referred
judgments that the nomination so made
would not lead to the nominee attaining
absolute title over the subject property for
which such nomination was made. In other
words, the usual mode of succession is not to
be impacted by such nomination. The legal
heirs therefore have not been excluded by
virtue of nomination."
9. Learned counsel for the applicant by way of written synopsis
submitted that the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court does not deal with
amendment in section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938. But this Court is afraid
that this argument of learned counsel for the applicant may not be correct as
what has been held in paragraph 41 of the decision in the case of Shakti
Yezdani (supra) is of general nature and covers all statutes under which
nomination is done.
10. It is well settled in law that for review there must be error
apparent on the face of record, re-appraisal of the entire evidence on record
for finding the error would amount to exercise the appellate jurisdiction
which is not permissible. Mere fact that two views on the same subject are
5 RP-1216-2022
possible is not a ground for review of the earlier order passed by a bench of
the same strength, where the remedy of appeal is available the power of
review should be exercised by the Court with greater circumspection. The
applicant cannot be given liberty to re-address the Court on merits because it
is not an appeal in disguise where the judgment is to be considered on merits.
[See: Meena Bhanja v. Nirmal, (1995) 1 SCC 170; Haridas Das v. Usha Rani
2006 (3) MPLJ (SC) 226; Union of India v. Sandur (2013) 8 SCC 337;
State of Rajasthan v. Surendra, 2014 MPLJ OnLine (SC) 1; Sivakami v.
State of Tamil Nadu, (2018) 4 SCC 587; J.R. Raghupathy Vs. State of A.P.
(AIR 1988 SC 1681) S. Bagirathi Ammal v. Palani Roman Catholic Mission,
(2009) 10 SCC 464 and State of West Bengal and Others v. Kamal Sengupta
and Another, (2008) 8 SCC 612 ].
10. In view of aforesaid, there is no error apparent on the face of record
and there is nothing in this petition on the basis of which the order dated
22.9.2022 passed in Civil Revision No.38/2021 can be reviewed or interfered
with. Accordingly, the review stands dismissed.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
RM
