Madras High Court
K.Malarkodi vs Vanitha on 29 November, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 08.11.2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 29.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
AS.No.925 of 2010
and MP.No.1 of 2010
1.K.Malarkodi
2.Minor K.Govardhani
3.Minor K.Raman
4.Minor K.Lakshmanan
(Minors 2 to 4 represented by
their mother and next friend
K.Malarkodi) .... Appellants
vs.
1.Vanitha
2.Kavitha
3.Vijaya Anand
4.Durai Rajan
5.The Branch Manager,
LFC of India, Ranipet. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure
Code, against the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2010 by the learned
Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranipet and made in O.S.
No.3 of 2009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/35
2
For Appellants : Mr.A.Rajendra Kumar
For R1 to R4 : Mr.T.P.Prabakaran, Advocate
For R5 : No Appearance
JUDGMENT
This Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated
29.06.2010 in OS.No.3 of 2009 by the Additional District Court, Fast
Track Court, Ranipet decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs
granting 1/8 share each or 4/8 share together in respect of items 1, 2 and
4 of the suit properties and dismissing the suit as against the item 3 of the
suit property.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per
their rankings before the Trial Court.
3. The Plaintiffs are the sons and daughters born through first
wife of their father Kannan. Plaintiffs father divorced his first wife
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Alamelu and married the first defendant Malarkodi. The defendants 2 to
4 are the children born through the first defendant.
4. It is the case of the plaintiff that their father was working as the
Office Assistant in the Office of the fifth defendant / LIC and died in
harness, leaving behind the Plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 4 as his
legal heirs.
5. After the death of their father Plaintiffs and Defendants 1 to 4
are entitled to succeed both the death benefits payable from the 5th
defendant and also the immovable properties owned by late Kannan. The
Plaintiffs and the defendants, jointly are in possession of all the
immovable properties. It is the further case of the Plaintiffs that the 1st
defendant, suppressing the presence of the plaintiffs, made a claim and
received the entire death benefits of Rs.14,01,657/-. Since the 5th
defendant has paid the entire amount to the 1st defendant despite the
objections of the plaintiffs, the 5th defendant has been impleaded in the
suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. According to the plaintiffs, the immovable properties
mentioned in items 1 and 2 of the suit are the absolute properties of said
Kannan. In addition, the 1st defendant has also purchased the house
property mentioned in Item 3 of the suit schedule. Thus, according to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
plaintiffs, they are entitled to a 4/8th share in all four items of the suit
properties.
7. The plaintiffs issued a legal notice dated 21.02.2008, calling
upon the defendant for an amicable partition by dividing the schedule
property into eight equal shares and allotting 1/4th share to defendants 1
to 4. After receiving the notice, the defendants 1 to 4 replied on
04.03.2008, admitting the plaintiff's share in the suit properties and
sought time for partition. However, defendants 1 to 4 remained silent
after issuing the reply notice, and therefore the plaintiffs were compelled
to file suit for partition and seek separate possession of their share in the
suit properties.
8. The defendants 2 to 4 are minors represented by the first
defendant's mother. The first defendant has filed a written statement
opposing the relief. According to the first defendant, her husband
Kannan legally divorced his wife Alamelu long ago. At that time, the
first wife demanded and got permanent alimony for her and her children
and she promised that she will not make any other claims in the future.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The 1st defendant claims that even after Kannan married her and they had
3 children, still the plaintiffs were taken care of and sufficiently provided
for. According to the first defendant, deceased Kannan nominated her as
nominee in the 5th respondent office to receive the terminal benefits that
could be paid to them. As per the the nomination, the 5 th defendant has
paid the entire death benefits of deceased Kannan to her, as per the
nomination.
9. In view of the nomination made by the deceased Kannan in
favour of the first defendant, the plaintiffs are not entitled to make any
claim in so far as the item 4 of the suit property is concerned. In respect
of the item 3 of the suit property, the same does not belong to first
defendant nor the deceased Kannan. Therefore, the claim as against Item
3 and 4 are not sustainable.
10. In respect of item no.2 of the suit property, it is her case that
the property absolutely belonged to deceased Kannan and that during his
life time he voluntarily executed a registered the Will dated 09.07.2003,
bequeathing item 2 of the suit property, which is the house, in favour of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the first defendant. As per the will the first defendant became the
absolute owner of the second item of the suit property. In view of the
same, the plaintiffs cannot make any legal claim over the same.
11. Further according to the first defendant, since defendants 2 to
4 are minors, no claim can be made in respect of item 1 of the suit
property for partition as those are lands. The 5th defendant/LIC has filed a
written statement stating that according to the office records, the first
defendant named Malarkodi is the wife of late Kannan. He was
appointed to LIC on 18.08.1993 and during the time of appointment, he
did not mention anything about his first wife or about the plaintiffs.
12. Therefore according to the nomination executed by the
deceased employee late Kannan, the first defendant is the only nominee.
The plaintiffs, who are legal heirs of the deceased Kannan's divorced
wife, did not make any objections or claimed the death benefits.
Therefore after deducting the housing loan of Rs.87,717.94, from out of
the total amount of Rs.14,01,657/-, a sum of Rs.13,13,939.69/- has been
paid in entirety to the first defendant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13. Considering the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court
framed the following issues:
Re-cast Issues
(a) Is the Will dated July 09, 2003, which D1 pleaded in respect of
the property in item(2) enforceable against the plaintiffs on fact and law?
(b) Have the plaintiff made out a case for declaring 4/8 share for
them in the plaint-schedule properties. That's item Nos.(1) to (4).
(c) What's this court's decree on the suit? What are its terms?
14. In the Trial, the fourth plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and
marked documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6. The first defendant examined
herself as DW.1 and marked 9 documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B9, The attestors
in the will in Ex.B1 were examined as DW.2 and DW.3.
15. After considering the evidences, the Trial Court, by judgment
and decree dated 29.06.2010, decreed the suit, granting 4/8th share in
favour of the plaintiffs in respect of Item 1, 2 and 4 of the suit properties
and dismissed the suit in respect of item 3.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiffs themselves have given up
the claim in respect of Item 3 of the suit properties and further defendants
1 to 4 have conceded to the share of the plaintiff in Item 1 of the suit
property. Therefore, the issue before the Trial Court was in respect of
Item 2 and Item 4 of the suit property. The Trial Court disbelieved the
Will executed in Ex.B1 in favour of the first defendant on the ground that
there are suspicious circumstances and the first defendant failed to prove
the execution of the Will. In respect of Item 4 of the suit property, the
Trial Court has come to the conclusion that even though the nomination
has been made by the deceased in favour of the first defendant, the first
defendant is entitled to receive the benefits only on behalf of the legal
heirs, and the nomination cannot retain the entire benefits for herself. In
other words, the first defendant as the nominee only holds the Trust for
the benefit of all the legal heirs and the same shall be distributed to all of
them. The further defense raised by the first defendant is that the entire
money received from the fifth defendant as the death benefits of the
deceased Kannan was spent towards medical expenses through
borrowings from 3rd parties were rejected by the Trial Court. It is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
observed that even according to the first defendant, the deceased being
the employee of the fifth defendant is entitled to claim the medical
benefits and only due to the same, the original bills were not able to be
filed in Court. Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree of the Trial Court,
defendants 1 to 4 are on appeal.
17. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that in respect of
Item 1 of the suit property, even before the Trial Court, they conceded
for partition to allot shares in favour of the plaintiffs and in respect of
claim for Item 3 of the suit property, neither the 1st defendant nor the
deceased Kannan is the owner and it belongs to some third party. And a
such the counsel for the appellant restricted his arguments only in respect
of item 2 and 4 of the suit property.
18. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, as far as
Item 2 of the suit property is concerned, it is absolute property of the
deceased Kannan. While he was in sound state of mind, he executed a
registered Will dated 09.07.2003 Ex.B.1, bequeathing the entire Item 2 of
the suit property to the first defendant. Testator died in the year 2011,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and after his death, as per the Will the first defendant became the
absolute owner of Item 2 of the suit property.
19. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the Will
has been proved by examining attesting witnesses. Once the execution of
the Will stands proved, Item 2 of the suit property is no longer available
for partition, as the 1st defendant became the owner.
20. According to the appellant's counsel, mere participation of
beneficiary while executing the document is not a suspicious
circumstances. Further mere disinheriting other legal heirs cannot be
suspicious circumstances to disbelieve the will. Trial Court has given
much importance to minor discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses.
21. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the
appellant relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported
in Mageshkumar (Dead) By Lrs. Vs. Vinod Kumnar and Others
reported in 2012 (4) SCC 387 for the proposition that active participation
of the beneficiary will not amount to suspicious circumstances.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
22. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4
submitted that Kannan died intestate, leaving behind the plaintiffs as the
legal heirs and they are entitled for the share in item 1, 2 and 4 of the suit
property. The learned counsel further submitted that in respect of Item
2 of the suit property, the Will in favour of the first defendant in Ex.B.1,
is not true and it was not executed by the deceased while in sound state
of mind.
23. According to the respondent counsel, DW.1 evidence is totally
contradictory to signature of the testator in all pages. He further states
that regarding attestation of the Will DW.3 Balaraman and DW.2
Gajendran, have given totally contradictory statements. DW.2 Gajendran,
in his evidence claims that the Will was already prepared and after he
signed in the Will DW.3 Balaraman signed. Whereas, DW.3 Balaraman
claims that only after he came the Will was prepared and he first signed
as the witness before DW.2. The learned counsel for the respondent
further argued that the evidence given by DW.1, 2 and 3 regarding the
signing of the Will by the testator deceased Kannan are not clear and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
raises suspicious circumstances and their evidence is untrustworthy to
believe. The Trial Court has rightly disbelieved the evidences and
rejected the Will in Ex.B.2, in respect of Item 2 of the suit property. The
learned counsel for the respondents submits that the first defendant
cannot claim the entire death benefits as a nominee. The first defendant
can only hold the trust for receiving the benefits and benefits received
from the 5th defendant has to be properly distributed among the legal
heirs.
24. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
deceased Kannan died in an accident and even in the claim before the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the plaintiffs were also made as parties
along with the defendants, and the award was passed in favour of
plaintiffs and defendants. According to the counsel for the respondents,
taking into account all the above aspects, the Trial Court has decreed the
suit in respect of Item Nos.1, 2 and 4 of the suit property granting 4/8th
share to the plaintiff and submits that since it is a well considered
judgment, the appeal may be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
25. Heard Mr. A. Rajendra Kumar, counsel for the appellants and
Mr. T.P. Prabhakaran, counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 and perused the
entire documents and evidences on record.
26. After hearing the parties, the following points arises for
consideration by this Court in the above appeal.
(1) Whether the Will Exhibit Ex.B.1 is proved as required under
law?
(2) Whether the will Exhibit B1 is surrounded with suspicious
circumstances?. If so whether propounder has dispelled the suspicious
circumstances?
(3) Whether the 1st defendant is entitled to retain the entire
service benefits received by her as a nominee from the 5th defendant
without distributing it to the other legal heirs.
(4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to partition of 1 to 4 items of
suit property as prayed?
Point Nos.1 & 2:
27. The relationship of the parties is not in dispute. Both the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 4 admit that deceased Kannan had a
first wife Alamelu and the plaintiffs 1 to 4 were born to Kannan through
the first wife. The deceased Kannan married the first defendant
Malarkodi, and defendants 2 to 4 were born through the second wife
Malarkodi. It is the admitted case of both sides that first defendant
married Kannan after the divorce of his wife Alamelu.
28. The first defendant resists the claim in respect of Item 2 of the
suit property based on the registered will dated 09.07.2003 in Ex.B.1. It
is her stand that her husband executed will in sound state of mind
bequeathing entire second item to the first defendant. Now it has to be
analyzed whether Exhibit B1 has been proved in a manner known to law
or whether it is attached with any suspicious circumstances.
29. Ex. B.1 is the registered Will. Mere registration of the
document alone cannot be taken as proof that the Will is proved. In other
words despite the Will being registered it is on the propounder to lead
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
cogent evidence and dispel the suspicious circumstances and prove the
execution of the Will, to satisfy the conscience of the Court to accept the
Will. For proving the execution, the propounder of the Will, first
defendant has given evidence as DW.1 and examined both the attesting
witnesses as DW2 and DW3.
30. On analyzing the oral evidence, it is seen that D.W.1 in her
evidence categorically states that the Will was prepared on 09.07.2003
and the testator himself dictated the Will to one Parthasarathy. The Will
was typed and kept ready and thereafter both the witnesses arrived.
31. D.W.1 in her cross examination has deposed that DW.3
Balaraman works in the BSNL office and during the lunch break, he
came from the office and after executing the Will, he immediately left to
his office. It is her further evidence that D.W.3, first came and signed the
Will as a witness and thereafter D.W.2 Gajendran came and signed the
will. They both witnessed the execution of the Will. Further in her cross
examination, DW.1 submitted that the testator signed only the first page
of the Will, and then she corrected her statement and stated that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
testator signed all the pages.
32. DW.2 Gajendran in his chief examination stated that the Will
was prepared in his presence and he saw the testator signing the Will and
thereafter he also signed it, and then DW.3 attested the Will. But, during
cross examination, DW.2 state that the Will was prepared, signed and
kept ready when he came to the office. If, the Will was already prepared,
signed, and kept ready, then there was no occasion for him to witness the
testator's signing the Will. Therefore DW.2 witnessing the testator
signing the Will is highly doubtful.
33. Further, DW.3 Balaraman has given evidence stating that he
was on leave for office for the whole day and was very much available in
the place and saw the Will being prepared and the testator signing the
Will. He deposed that only when DW.2 Gajendran arrived they started
preparing the Will. Thereafter Gajendran DW.2 signed in the Will and
thereafter he signed. Further DW.3 stated that deceased Kannan entered
the registrar office and signed the Will. Thereafter he corrected his
statement and stated that he also signed when it was attested.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
34. The relevant portion of evidences of D.W.1, D.W.2 and Dw3
are extracted hereunder for easy reference.
Evidence of DW.1:
jhth capiy vd; fzth; vOjpaNghJ> ehDk;
$lapUe;Njd;. Jhth capiy gjpT nra;j
fhyj;jpy; ehd; cldpUe;Njd;. Nkw;go capypy;
1tJ gf;fj;jpy; kl;Lk; vd; fzth; ifnaOj;J
Nghl;L rhh;gjpthsh;> mYtyfj;jpy;
nfhLj;Jtpl;lhh;. rhl;rp kPz;Lk; vy;yh gf;fj;jpYk;
ifnaOj;J Nghl;ljhf nrhy;fpwhh;. rhl;rpahf
gyuhkd; vd;gth; KjypYk;. fN[e;jpud; vd;gth;
,uz;lhtjhfTk; ifnaOj;J Nghl;lhh;fs;. vd;
fztNu rhl;rpfis mioj;J te;jhh;. rhl;rp
gyuhkd; gp.v];.; vd;. vy;ypy; Ntiy ghh;f;fpwhh;.
mtUila rhg;ghL Neuj;jpy; rhl;rpf;fhf vd;
fzth; mioj;J te;jhh;. yd;r; ilkpy; rhl;rp
gyuhkd; thyh[htpYs;s jd; tPlb ; ypUe;J te;J
rhl;rp ifnaOj;J nghl;Ltpl;L MgpRf;F
Ngha;tpl;lhh;. rhl;rp fN[e;jpud; mtUila tPl;by;
,Ue;jhh;. vd; fzth; mioj;J te;jhh;. capiy
ilg; gz;zp itj;jg; gpwFjhd; rhl;rpfs; gyuhkd;
fN[e;jpud; MfpNahiu mth; mtuJ tPl;bypUe;J
mioj;J te;jhh;.
Evidence of DW.2:
ehd; Nghtjw;F Kd;Ng rhl;rp [hdfpuhkd; gyuhkd;
vd;gth;fs; ,Ue;jhh;fs;. kyh; nfhbAk;
$lapUe;jhh;. ehd; NghFk;NghJ> capy; vOjp
ifnaOj;J Nghl;L nubahf itj;jpUe;jhh;fs;.
mjd; gpwF ehd; nrd;W rhl;rp ifnahg;gk;
Nghl;Nld;. vdf;F gpwF gyuhkd; rhl;rp
ifnahg;gk; Nghl;lhh;.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Evidence of DW.3
09.07.03y; capy; gjpag;gl;lJ. ehd; md;W yPt;
Nghl;L ,Ue;Njd;. ehd; NtW fhuzj;jpw;fhf yPt;
Nghl;L ,Ue;Njd;. capypy; rhl;rpg; Nghl md;iwa
jpdk; fz;zd; vd;id $g;gpl;lhh;. 09.07.03y; xU
ehs; kl;Lk; jhd; yPt; Nghl;L ,Ue;Njd;. ehd; te;j
gpwF fN[e;jpud; vd;gth; te;jhh;. [hdfpuhkd;
te;jhh;. kyh;f;nfhb mq;F ,Ue;jhh;fs;. vdf;F
gpd;dhy; jhd; fN[e;jpud; te;jhh;. ehd; te;jg;
gpwFjhd; capy; jahhpf;f Muk;gpj;jhh;fs;. fz;zd;
nrhy;y nrhy;y utpr;re;jpud; ilg; nra;jhh;. jkpo;
jl;lr;rpy; ilg; nra;jhh;fs;. Kjypy; rhl;rp
ifnaOj;J fN[e;jpud; Nghl;lhh;. GpwF ehd;
ifnaOj;J Nghl;Nld;. fz;zd; rhh;gjpthsh;
mYtyfj;jpw;F cs;Ns Ngha; ifnaOj;J Nghl;lhh;.
rhl;rp kPz;Lk; fz;zd; ntspNa ,Ue;Jk;>
ifnaOj;Jg; Nghl;lhh; vd;fpwhh;.
35. A perusal of the above evidence of DW1, DW2 and DW3
shows that they are completely contradictory to each other. The evidence
in respect of the preparation of the Will, the testator's signing of the Will
and the attestation of the Will after witnessing the same raises several
doubts about the nature of the execution of the Will. The propounder of
the Will, DW1 beneficiary not only participated in the preparation of the
Will but also participated in registration. Evidence of DW2 and DW3 on
careful analysis makes it clear that attestation of document has not been
proved in the manner known to law. Section 63 of the Indian Succession
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Act reads as follows,
63. Execution of unprivileged Wills. —Every testator, not
being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in
actual warfare, 12 [or an airman so employed or engaged,]
or a mariner at sea, shall execute his Will according to the
following rules:—
(a) The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the Will,
or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and
by his direction.
(b) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of
the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall
appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the
writing as a Will.
(c) The Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each
of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the
Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the
presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received
from the testator a personal acknowledgement of his
signature or mark, or the signature of such other person; and
each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the
testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one
witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of
attestation shall be necessary.
36. Perusal of the above provision makes it clear that attestation as
required under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, is a distinct
act. Unless attestation and execution of will is proved, will cannot be
admitted in evidence. By analyzing the evidence of DW1 to DW3,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
irresistible conclusion could be arrived at that execution and attestation
of will has not been established.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
37. Further in the present case, it is admitted that the first
defendant is the second wife of the deceased Kannan testator and that she
actively participated in the preparation and execution of the Will.
Secondly all the sons and daughters of the deceased Kannan numbering
7, including the minor dependents, defendants 2 to 4 and the plaintiffs 1
to 4 have been completely excluded in the will, particularly when the 1st
defendant is the sole beneficiary as per the Will. Further there was no
reason assigned in the will even to exclude the minor children and that
itself is a suspicious circumstance, which has not been dispelled by the
propounder of the will.
38. In view of the aforementioned suspicious circumstances
surrounding the Will, attestation and execution having not been
established by evidence and further propounder has not dispelled the
suspicious circumstances by satisfying the conscience of the Court, this
Court is not in a position to accept the Will as proved and rejects it for
the afore said reasons. Therefore Point No.1 & 2, are answered against
the appellants and as a result, Item-2 of the suit property is available for
partition and both the parties are entitled to their share.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Point No.3:
39. The 1st defendant has resisted the claim of the plaintiffs in
respect to the death benefits of the deceased paid by the 5th defendant, on
the ground that since she is the sole nominee nominated by the deceased
to receive the benefits from the office of the 5th defendant, she is entitled
to retain the entire benefits and the plaintiffs are barred from making any
claim, The 1st defendant has raised a inter se dispute between the
nominee and the legal heirs.
40. At this juncture, it will be useful to refer the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarabati Devi & Another Vs. Usha Devi,
reported in AIR 1984 (SC) 346, whether the Court had the occasion to
consider the question whether the nominee appointed under Section 39 of
the Life Insurance Act, 1938 gets absolute right to amount due under life
insurance policy on death of assured, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held as follows:
“12. Moreover there is one other strong circumstance
in this case which dissuades us from taking a view
contrary to the decisions of all other High Courts and
accepting the view expressed by the Delhi High Court in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the two recent judgments delivered in the year 1978 and
in the year 1982. The Act has been in force from the
year 1938 and all along almost all the High Courts in
India have taken the view that a mere nomination
effected under section 39 does not deprive the heirs of
their rights in the amount payable under a life
insurance policy. Yet Parliament has not chosen to
make any amendment to the Act. In such a situation
unless there are strong and compelling reasons to hold
that all these decisions are wholly erroneous, the Court
should be slow to take a different view. The reasons
given by the Delhi High Court are unconvincing. We,
therefore, hold that the judgments of the Delhi High
Court in Fauja Singh's case and in Mrs. Uma Sehgal's
case do not lay down the law correctly. They are,
therefore, overruled. We approve the views expressed
by the other High Courts on the meaning of section 39
of the Act and hold that a mere nomination made under
section 39 of the Act does not have the effect of
conferring on the nominee any beneficial interest in the
amount payable under the life insurance policy on the
death of the assured. The nomination only indicates the
hand which is authorised to receive the amount, on the
payment of which the insurer gets a valid discharge of
its liability under the policy. The amount, however, can
be claimed by the heirs of the assured in accordance
with the law of succession governing them.”
41. Again in Vishin N.Khandchandani Vs. Vidya Lachmandas
Khanchandani, reported in 2000 (6) SCC 724, the question whether the
nominee specified in the National Savings Certificate, on the death of its
holder, becomes entitled to the sum due under the certificate to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
exclusion of all other persons ? Or whether the amount of the certificate
can be retained by him for the benefit of the legal heirs of the deceased?
came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was
held as under:
“13. In the light of what has been noticed
hereinabove, it is apparent that though language and
phraseology of Section 6 of the Act is different than the
one used in Section 39 of the Insurance Act, yet, the
effect of both the provisions is the same. The Act only
makes the provisions regarding avoiding delay and
expense in making the payment of the amount of the
national savings certificates, to the nominee of holder,
which has been considered to be beneficial both for the
holder as also for the post office. Any amount paid to the
nominee after valid deductions or becomes the estate of
the deceased. Such an estate devolves upon all persons
who are entitled to succession under law, custom or
testament of the deceased holder. In other words, the law
laid down by this Court in Sarbati Devi's case holds field
and is equally applicable to the nominee becoming
entitled to the payment of the amount on account of
national savings certificates received by him under
Section 6 read with Section 7 of the Act who in turn is
liable to return the amount to those, in whose favour law
creates beneficial interest, subject to the provisions of
sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act.”
42. Further in the decision in Vidyaa Hari Iyer Vs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M/s.Sundaram Finance Limited, reported in CDJ 2020 MHC 4925, a
learned Single Judge of this Court, by following the ratio laid down in
Sarabati Devi's case (cited supra) and Vishin N.Khandchandani's
case (cited supra), has observed as follows:
“17. As far as Section 45ZA of the Banking
Regulation Act is concerned, the above section indicate
that the amount shall be paid to the nominee. It is also
to be noted that Section 45ZD makes it clear that when
there is an Order or a certificate or other authority
from a Court obtained relating to such article is
produced before the bank, the bank shall take due note
of such decree, Order, certificate or other authority.
Therefore, it cannot be said that even after the
succession certificate is granted by the competent Court
is produced before the bank, they cannot ignore the
same merely on the basis of Section 45ZA of the
Banking Regulations Act. Even though 45ZA contained
non obstante clause, the Apex Court in Vishin N.
Khanchandani Vs. Vidya Lachamandas Khanchandani
reported in 2000 (6) SCC 724 in para 11 has
categorically held that though the overriding effect of
non obstante clause to attract the applicability of the
phrase, the whole of the section, the scheme of the Act
and the objects and reasons for which such an
enactment is made have to kept in mind, as the nominee
has to be treated as a trustee and he is entitled to
receive the amount only and he has to pay the amount to
the persons who are entitled under law of succession.
Therefore, when the succession certificate already
granted, the object of the Indian Succession Act has to
be given importance. Accordingly, the contention that
only the nominee alone as per section 45ZA of the
Banking Regulations Act is entitled to receive the money
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
even after succession certificate is granted, cannot be
countenanced...
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarabati Devi's case
(cited supra) held that nomination only indicated the
hand which is authorized to receive the amount, on the
payment of which the insurer get a valid discharge of its
liability under the policy and the amount, however, can
be claimed by the heirs of the assured in accordance
with the Law of Succession governing them. The
decision of this Court in Vidyaa Hari Iyer's case cited
supra emphasis the dictum that the nominee has to be
treated as a trustee and he is entitled to receive the
amount only and he has to pay the amount to the
persons who are entitled under Law of Succession.
43. From the above decisions, the legal position that emerge is that
nominee is only entitled to receive the benefits and give a valid discharge
to the payee and the nominee only receive the benefits and holds the
same as trustee and the same has be distributed equally to the persons
entitled as per succession.
44. Coming to case on hand, there is no dispute about relationship
between the parties and it is admitted by both the parties that the
plaintiffs 1 to 4 and the defendant 1 to 4 are the Class-I legal heirs of the
deceased Kannan. The 1st defendant only resists the claim of the
plaintiffs on the ground that since she is the nominee, she is entitled to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
retain the entire death benefits received from the 5th defendant. Further
it is her case that the benefits received from the 5th defendant has been
spent for the treatment and medical expenses incurred by the deceased
and has filed documents in Ex.B.8 and Ex.B.9.
45. Before considering the documents filed in Ex.B.8 and Ex.B.9 it
will be more appropriate to consider the reply notice issued by the
defendant’s 1 to 4 in Ex.B.3, where the 1st defendant has taken a
categorical stand in respect to the claim of the plaintiffs as regards the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
death benefit is concerned. Paragraph 7 and 9 are extracted hereunder for
easy reference,
“7. That my client being nominee of
Mr.P.P.Kannan has obtained total Rs.13,32.391/- lakhs
after deductions as terminal benefits from L.I.C., of
India and not Rs.14,01,657/- as stated by your clients.
Since Mr.P.P.Kannan left behind 8 Legal heirs and the
share of each legal heir is Rs.1,66,548/-. As such my
client is liable to make the payment of Rs.6,66,192/- as
total share of all 4 of your clients.
9. That my clients states that she always treat
the other legal heirs are her sons and daughters and
she is ready to pay your clients shares amount to
Rs.6,66,192/-. However my clients are not holding any
amount at present. She offer to sell the property
mentioned in No.2 of the schedule of property of your
notice and the sale proceeds can be divided into 8
equal shares and my client will be paying the above
said Rs.6,66,192/- from her share of sale proceeds. My
client will also try to get a genuine Buyer and you may
also instruct your client to search for Buyers”.
46. When the reply notice in Ex.B.3 is after the document
submitted by the 1st defendant in Ex.B.8 and Ex.B9, where the 1st
defendant has admitted and conceded to the claim of the plaintiffs and
has stated that they are entitled to 1/4th share each amounting to
Rs.1,65,000/-, and the 1st defendant will return the same to the plaintiffs,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the defense raised by the 1st defendant that as a nominee she is entitled
to retain the amount received from the 5th defendant cannot be sustained.
In view of the categorical admission of the 1st defendant that the
plaintiffs are entitled to a sum of Rs,6,66,192/- in respect of the share.
When defendants 1 to 4 admitted share in the benefits to the plaintiffs at
earlier point of time in the reply statement, only inference now arise is
that Ex.B8 and Ex.B9 are only after though and cannot be relied on. If
really Ex.B8 and Ex.B9 were available, there was no reason as to why
the same was not disclosed in the reply notice. Further when this Court
pointed out the above admission to the respondents counsel during
arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in
view of the reply notice, he is confining his arguments only in respect of
item 2 of the suit property and conceded to the item 4 of the suit
property.
47. In such circumstances, it can be safely concluded that the 1st
defendant as a nominee is entitled to receive the death benefits from the
5th defendant and hold it only a trustee on behalf of all the legal heirs of
the deceased and is duty bound to distribute the amount received, to all
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the legal heirs as per the Law of Succession. As it is admitted that the
plaintiffs 1 to 4 and defendants 1 to 4 are the class-I legal heirs of the
deceased, the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/4th share each in item 4 of the suit
property and the point is answered against the 1st defendant and in favor
of the plaintiffs.
Point No.4:
48. The defendants 1 to 4 have themselves conceded for partition
in the first item of the suit property. As far as item 3 the suit has been
dismissed. Therefore in view of the findings given in Point 1 to 3, the
properties in item 1, 2 and 4 are available for partition. As deceased
Kannan died intestate, Section 8 of the Hindu Succession is applicable
and the plaintiffs 1 to 4 and the defendants 1 to 4 being the class-I legal
heirs are entitled to 1/8th share each out of items 1, 2 and 4 of the suit
property. Accordingly all the points are answered.
49. In view of the same, this Court does not find any infirmity or
otherwise to interfere in the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. As
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
such the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the
Trial Court. Considering the relationship between the parties, there is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
29.11.2023
drl
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non-speaking
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
1. The Additional District Judge,
(Fast Track Court), Ranipet
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.ARUL MURUGAN.J.,
drl
29.11.2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
