Skip to main content

A nominee is only a Trustee holding the amount on behalf of the actual beneficiaries and does not have any vested right or interest in the same

In R.Saranya vs. The Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, during the life time of the deceased Ramakrishnan, he had taken two insurance policies with the first Respondent. He had been paying the premium till his death. As the first Petitioner is inexperienced and was not well-educated, her husband had appointed the second Respondent, who is his paternal uncle's son, as nominee in the said policies. However, after the death of the first Petitioner's husband, the second Respondent is trying to appropriate the entire insurance amount taking advantage of the nomination made in his favour. Though a legal notice was issued to the first Respondent, the first respondent has not yet settled the amount in favour of the Petitioners. Petitioner has sought this writ of mandamus before the Madras High Court, to direct the first Respondent to release the insured amount under two Policy proportionately in favour of the Petitioners. 

The prayer of the Petitioners was resisted by the first Respondent by filing a counter affidavit contending that, they have not acted anything detrimental to the interest of the beneficiaries and has not shown any undue haste in releasing the amounts under the policies. 

It is a well settled principle that, a nominee is only a Trustee holding the amount on behalf of the actual beneficiaries and does not have any vested right or interest in the same. 

As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarbati Devi and another vs. Smt.Usha Devi, when the nominee is only an authorised person to receive the amount and distribute in accordance with the law of succession, the second respondent, who is a nominee, cannot have any right over the said amount. 

It is also not in dispute that the Petitioners, under the law of succession, which governs them, are entitled to an equal share in the estate of the deceased. The Policy amount receivable is a part of the estate of the deceased and the Petitioners are entitled to equal share. 

The High Court therefore allowed the writ petition directing the first Respondent to release the insurance amount payable under the Policy taken in the name of the deceased, directly to the Petitioners

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more