Madras High Court
Ramayee vs Krishnaveni And Three Ors. on 26 April, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996(1)CTC547
Author: P. Sathasivam
Bench: P. Sathasivam
ORDER P. Sathasivam, J.
1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 2432 of 1979 on the file of District Munsif, Turaiyur, is the appellant in the above second appeal. She filed the said suit for declaration that she is also a heir to the deceased Moorthy to receive the amount of gratuity, family pension and other amounts to be disbursed by the Tamil Nadu Government and the amount to be disbursed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 2 to 4 from disbursing the said amounts.
2. The case of the plaintiff as found in the plaint are as follows:- One Moorthy, the son of the plaintiff and the husband of the first defendant was employed as a police constable in Thanjavur East Police circle. The said Moorthy died in harness on 31.7.79. The plaintiff and the first defendant are the only legal heirs of the deceased Moorthy. According to the plaintiff, Tamil Nadu Government disburses Rs. 10,000 as family benefit fund, the gratuity and pension to the heirs of the deceased Moorthy. The first defendant is trying to get those amounts to herself. On knowing that the plaintiff issued a notice to the Superintendent of Police, East Thanjavur stating her right to the said amounts. On 13.9.1979 the said Superintendent of Police issued a reply to the same stating that without any order from the Civil Court, the amounts to be disbursed by the Government will not be disbursed to the plaintiff. It is contended that in those amounts the plaintiff has also half share. The deceased Moorthy has a policy holder in the 4th defendant Corporation The plaintiff issued a notice to the 4th defendant and she had not received any reply. Since the first defendant is admitting to collect the insurance amount from the 4th defendant, the plaintiff has constrained to file a suit.
3. The third defendant filed a written statement and the same was adopted by defendants 1 and 2 which reads as follows:-
The plaintiff has no right to sue and the suit as framed is not maintainable. With regard to the pensions gratuity and Family Benefit Fund Scheme, the General Hindu Law is not applicable and the amounts shall be disbursed only to the nominees of the deceased. The deceased Moorthy worked as a constable in Armed Reserve Police and died on 31.7.79 and he has nominated his wife/1st defendant to receive the amount under Tamil Nadu Family Benefit Fund Scheme, pension, gratuity. As per G.O. 1515, Finance dated 3.12.73 read with Government Memo No. 83309/Pen/74, dated 5.12.74 the amount shall be given to the nominee alone and not to any other heirs of deceased. The second defendant is an unnecessary party to suit. The suit is also bad for want of notice under Section 80, C.P.C. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
4. The written statement filed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (4th defendant) reads as follows:- The deceased Moorthy is the holder of the Policy No. 42036223. In his proposal dated 1.3.70, he has nominated his wife, the first defendant as his nominee under Section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938. Without getting any order from a competent Court annulling the said nomination the plaintiff is not entitled to receive the insurance amount from the defendant. The insurance amount is payable only to the person or persons to whom the court orders the 4th defendant to pay or to the person who produce a succession certificate from a competent court. Therefore, the suit is premature. The 4th defendant is an unnecessary party to the suit. The insurance amount will become due only after the claim is admitted and the present suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.
5. Plaintiff herself was examined as P.W. 1 and she has not marked any document in support of her claim. On the side of the defence none were examined, however, Exs. B-1 to B-3 were marked in support of their defence. After framing necessary issues, the learned District Munsif, Turaiyur, following the decision of this court rendered in M.V. Krishnamoorthy v. Tmt. Anandalakshmi, 1982 II M.L.J 321 found that the first defendant's nomination by the deceased Moorthy will not confer absolute right in the first defendant over the monies payable to the deceased Moorthy from the hands of defendants 2 to 6. The trial court further observed that the plaintiff being a heir to the deceased is entitled to inherit half share in the said monies of Moorthy who died intestate. Therefore, the plaintiff being an heir to the deceased Moorthy is entitled to a half share in the family pension, gratuity, family benefit fund amount and other pensions payable by the Tamil Nadu State Government and for the Insurance amount payable by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, accordingly decreed the suit in this regard. Aggrieved by the said decree of the trial court, the first defendant, namely, wife of the deceased Moorthy filed appeal in A.S. No. 164 of 1981 on the file of Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli. The lower appellate court after narrating the pleadings of the parties, determined the point whether the plaintiff is entitled to a share in the family pension, gratuity and other pensions payable by the Government and for the L.I.C. amount. The lower appellate court in preference to the decision rendered in M. V. Krishnamoorthy v. Tmt. Anandalakshmi, 1982 (2) M.L.J. 321, relying on a Bench decision of this court, reported in Karuppa Gounder v. Palaniammal , held that the first defendant being the nominee alone is entitled to the insurance amount to the exclusion of the mother. With this view, the lower appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the decree of the trial court.
5. Against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court, the unsuccessful plaintiff has filed the present appeal before this Court. While entertaining the second appeal, this Court has framed the following substantial question of law for consideration:-
"Whether the nomination made by the deceased in relation to the pecuniary benefits gratuity and the family benefit fund which become payable on the death of the deceased will override the right of inheritance available to the legal heirs of the deceased under the personal law?
6. In the light of the substantial question of law framed, Mr. Senthilnathan, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court cannot be sustained in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court as well as our court. For the above proposition, he relied on (1) Sarbati Devi v. Usha Devi, and (2) Narammal (died) v. Kanthamani, 1992 (2) M.L.J. 538.
7. In identical circumstances the Supreme Court in Sarbati Devi v. Usha Devi, has held "A mere nomination made under Section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938 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.
The summary of the relevant provisions of Section 39 establishes clearly that the policy holder continues to hold interest in the policy during his lifetime and the nominee acquires no sort of interest in the policy during the lifetime of the policy holder. If that is so, on the death of the policy holder the amount payable under the policy becomes part of his estate which is governed by the law of succession applicable to him. Such succession may be testamentary or intestate. There is no warrant for the position that Section 39 of the Act operates as a third kind of succession, which is styled as a 'statutory testament'. The provision in Sub-section (6) of Section 39 which says that the amount shall be payable to the nominee or nominees does not mean that the amount shall belong to the nominee or nominees. The language of Section 39 is not capable of altering the course of succession under law."
In another Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Narammal (died) v. Kanthamani, 1992 (2) M.L.J. 538. Their Lordships had an occasion to consider the similar question following the decision of the Apex Court in Sarbati Devi v. Usha Devi, . The Division Bench had also held "that the nominee gets only a right to receive the amount to distribute the same to the heirs of the deceased in accordance with the law of succession governing them."
8. The above two decisions of the Apex Court and Division Bench judgment of this court approve the decision of Sathyadev, J., rendered in M.V. Krishnamoorthy v. Tmt. Anandalakshmi, 1982 (2) M.L.J 321. The very same view has been taken by Srinivasan, J., in a decision reported in Meenambal v. Saradhambal, 1990 (1) L. W. 302.
9. All these judicial decisions clearly show that the nominee gets only a right to receive the amount ot distribute the same to the heirs of the deceased in accordance with the law of succession governing them. The above said legal position has not been disputed by any of the respondent's counsel. Hence the judgment of the lower appellate court is set aside and the judgment of the trial court is restored, accordingly the second appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.