Ashok Sharma vs Pushpa

1 CR-19-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA ON THE 16th OF JANUARY, 2026 CIVIL REVISION No. 19 of 2026 ASHOK SHARMA Versus PUSHPA AND OTHERS Appearance: Shri Sanjay Kumar Bahirani - Advocate for applicant.

ORDER

1. This Civil Revision under Section 115 of CPC has been filed against the order dated 2/12/2025 passed by Second Additional Judge to the Court of First District and Additional Judge, Ashok Nagar, in MCA No.30/2024, as well as the order dated 26/4/2024 passed by First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ashok Nagar, in case number MJC-SUC-04/2022.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present revision, in short, are that the applicant as well as respondent No.1 and deceased Kaushal Kishore are real siblings. Gayatri (mother of applicant, respondent No.1 and

deceased Kaushal Kishore) died on 02/04/2022. She had two bank accounts and a locker. In bank account maintained in Union Bank of India, a total amount of Rs.54,798/- was deposited, whereas in Punjab National Bank, a total amount of Rs.4,88,790/- was deposited and also had one locker. The applicant was made nominee.

3. It appears that the applicant withdrew the amount deposited in

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 20-01-2026 07:10:17 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2122

2 CR-19-2026 Union Bank of India; therefore, respondents No.1 and respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of succession certificate. The applicant opposed their prayer.

4. However, the trial Court, by impugned order dated 26/4/2024 passed in case number MJC- SUC-04/ 2022, held that the applicant as well as respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly entitled to receive the entire amount deposited in the savings bank account No.0027000100118923 in Punjab National Bank and it was also directed that the applicant as well as respondents No.1 and 2 shall furnish security to the tune of Rs.1-1 Lac with an undertaking that, in case if any other legal representative comes forward, they shall deposit the amount in the Court. It was also directed that, on payment of court fees, a succession certificate be issued in favour of the

applicant as well as respondents No.1 and 2.

5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court, the applicant preferred an appeal, which too has been dismissed by the appellate Court.

6. Challenging the order passed by the Courts below, it is submitted by counsel for applicant that Gayatri had a locker in her name and had two bank accounts, i.e., one in Union Bank of India and another in Punjab National Bank. In Union Bank of India, Rs.54,798/- were deposited, which has already been withdrawn by the applicant on the strength of nomination. However, the nomination in respect of the bank account maintained in Punjab National Bank was found to be suspicious; therefore, a succession certificate has been issued in favour of the applicant as well as respondents

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 20-01-2026 07:10:17 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2122

3 CR-19-2026 No. 1 and 2. It is submitted that both the Courts below have committed a material illegality by holding that the nomination of applicant in the bank account of Smt. Gayatri maintained in Punjab National Bank was suspicious.

7. Considered the submissions made by counsel for applicant. 8 . Whether the nomination of the applicant in the bank account of Gayatri maintained in Punjab National Bank is suspicious or not, is not material, for the simple reason that a nominee would not become the owner of the property, and he would only hold the property as a trustee on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased person.

9. The Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarbati Devi & Another v. Smt. Usha Devi, reported in (1984) 1 SCC 424 , has held as under :

"4. At the outset it should be mentioned that except the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Kesari Devi v. Dharma Devi [AIR 1962 All 355 : 1962 All LJ 265] on which reliance was placed by the High Court in dismissing the appeal before it and the two decisions of the Delhi High Court in S. Fauza Singh v. Kuldip Singh [AIR 1978 Del 276] and Uma Sehgal v. Dwarka Dass Sehgal [AIR 1982 Del 36 : ILR (1981) 2 Del 315] in all other decisions cited before us the view taken is that the nominee under Section 39 of the Act is nothing more than an agent to receive the money due under a life insurance policy in the circumstances similar to those in the present case and that the money remains the property of the assured during his lifetime and on his death forms part of his estate subject to the law of succession applicable to him. The cases which have taken the above view are Ramballav Dhandhania v. Gangadhar Nathmall [AIR 1956 Cal 275] ; Life Insurance Corporation of India v. United Bank of India Ltd [AIR 1970 Cal 513] ; D. Mohanavelu Mudaliar v. Indian Insurance and Banking Corporation Ltd., Salem [AIR 1957 Mad 115 : (1956) 1 LLJ 498 : (1955-56) 9 FJR 160] ; Sarojini Amma v. Neelakanta Pillai [AIR 1961 Ker 126 : (1961) 31 Com Cas 86 : 1960 KLT

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 20-01-2026 07:10:17 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2122

4 CR-19-2026 1319] ; Atmaram Mohanlal Panchal v. Gunvantiben [AIR 1977 Guj 134 : 18 GLR 668] ; Malli Dei v.

Kanchan Prava Dei [AIR 1973 Ori 83] and Lakshmi Amma v. Saguna Bhagath [ILR 1973 Kant 827] . Since there is a conflict of judicial opinion on the question involved in this case it is necessary to examine the above cases at some length. The law in force in England on the above question is summarised in Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edn.), Vol. 25, para 579 thus:

"579. Position of third party.--The policy money payable on the death of the assured may be expressed to be payable to a third party and the third party is then prima facie merely the agent for the time being of the legal owner and has his authority to receive the policy money and to give a good discharge; but he generally has no right to sue the insurers in his own name. The question has been raised whether the third party's authority to receive the policy money is terminated by the death of the assured; it seems, however, that unless and until they are otherwise directed by the assured's personal representatives the insurers may pay the money to the third party and get a good discharge from him."

* * *

8. We have carefully gone through the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Uma Sehgal case [AIR 1982 Del 36 : ILR (1981) 2 Del 315] . In this case the High Court of Delhi clearly came to the conclusion that the nominee had no right in the lifetime of the assured to the amount payable under the policy and that his rights would spring up only on the death of the assured. The Delhi High Court having reached that conclusion did not proceed to examine the possibility of an existence of a conflict between the law of succession and the right of the nominee under Section 39 of the Act arising on the death of the assured and in that event which would prevail. We are of the view that the language of Section 39 of the Act is not capable of altering the course of succession under law. The second error committed by

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 20-01-2026 07:10:17 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2122

5 CR-19-2026 the Delhi High Court in this case is the reliance placed by it on the effect of the amendment of Section 60(1) (kb) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 providing that all moneys payable under a policy of insurance on the life of the judgment debtor shall be exempt from attachment by his creditors. The High Court equated a nominee to the heirs and legatees of the assured and proceeded to hold that the nominee succeeded to the estate with all 'plus and minus points'. We find it difficult to treat a nominee as being equivalent to an heir or legatee having regard to the clear provisions of Section 39 of the Act. The exemption of the moneys payable under a life insurance policy under the amended Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure instead of 'devaluing' the earlier decisions which upheld the right of a creditor of the estate of the assured to attach the amount payable under the life insurance policy recognises such a right in such creditor which he could have exercised but for the amendment. It is because it was attached the Code of Civil Procedure exempted it from attachment in furtherance of the policy of Parliament in making the amendment. The Delhi High Court has committed another error in appreciating the two decisions of the Madras High Court in Karuppa Gounder v. Palaniamma [AIR 1963 Mad 245 at para 13 : (1963) 1 MLJ 86 : ILR (1963) Mad 434] and in B.M. Mundkur v. Life Insurance Corporation of India [AIR 1977 Mad 72 : 47 Com Cas 19 : (1977) 1 MLJ 59 : ILR (1975) 3 Mad 336] . The relevant part of the decision of the Delhi High Court in Uma Sehgal case [AIR 1982 Del 36 : ILR (1981) 2 Del 315] reads thus: (AIR p. 40, paras 10, 11)

"10. In Karuppa Gounder v. Palaniamma [AIR 1963 Mad 245 at para 13 : (1963) 1 MLJ 86 : ILR (1963) Mad 434] , K had nominated his wife in the insurance policy. K died. It was held that in virtue of the nomination, the mother of K was not entitled to any portion of the insurance amount.

11. I am in respectful agreement with these views, because they accord with the law and reason. They are supported by Section 44(2) of the Act. It provides that the commission

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 20-01-2026 07:10:17 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2122

6 CR-19-2026 payable to an insurance agent shall after his death, continue to be payable to his heirs, but if the agent had nominated any person the commission shall be paid to the person so nominated. It cannot be contended that the nominee under Section 44 will receive the money not as owner but as an agent on behalf of someone else, vide B.M. Mundkur v. Life Insurance Corporation [AIR 1977 Mad 72 :

47 Com Cas 19 : (1977) 1 MLJ 59 : ILR (1975) 3 Mad 336] . Thus, the nominee excludes the legal heirs."

10. The Supreme Court in the case of Vishin N. Khanchandani and Another versus Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani and Another , reported in (2000) 6 SCC 724, has held as under :

"7. Mr Sanjay K. Kaul, Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that Section 6 of the Act very unambiguously provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or in any disposition, testamentary or otherwise, in respect of any savings certificate where a nomination is made, the nominee shall, on the death of the holder of the savings certificate, become entitled to the savings certificate and to be paid the sum due thereon to the exclusion of all other persons. Referring to sub-section (3) of Section 6, the learned counsel submitted that in case where the nominee is a minor, the holder of the savings certificate has a right to make the nomination to appoint in the prescribed manner any person to receive the sum due thereon in the event of his death during the minority of the nominee. It is contended that if the intention was not to entitle the nominee to be paid and to retain the sum due on such National Savings Certificates, there was no necessity of making a provision as has been incorporated in sub-section (3) of Section 6. Section 7 was also relied upon to urge that after the death of the holder, the nominee becomes entitled to the payment of the sum due without there being any further obligation upon him. In support of such an argument further reliance was placed upon sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 7. He also tried to distinguish the verdict of this

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 20-01-2026 07:10:17 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2122

7 CR-19-2026 Court in Sarbati Devi v. Usha Devi [(1984) 1 SCC 424 :

1984 SCC (Tax) 59] by pointing out the difference of the language and phraseology in Section 6 of the Act and Section 39 of the Insurance Act. According to him the words, "on the death of the holder of the savings certificate, become entitled to the savings certificate and to be paid the sum due thereon to the exclusion of all other persons", appearing in Section 6 of the Act have not been incorporated in Section 39 of the Insurance Act suggesting that the legislature had intended to make the nominee absolute owner of the value of the certificates.

* * *

13. In the light of what has been noticed hereinabove, it is apparent that though the language and phraseology of Section 6 of the Act is different from 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 the 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 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 case [(1984) 1 SCC 424 : 1984 SCC (Tax) 59] holds the 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 the law creates a beneficial interest, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act."

11. Thus, it is clear that whether or not the nomination of the applicant in the bank account of Gayatri maintained in Punjab National Bank was suspicious, the applicant will never become the owner of the amount under any circumstance. Even otherwise, the applicant was not the owner of

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 20-01-2026 07:10:17 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2122

8 CR-19-2026 Rs.54,798/- which was deposited in the bank account maintained by Smt. Gayatri in Union Bank of India.

12. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that since applicant was of the view that he would distribute equal shares to respondents No.1 and 2 in a more respectable manner, therefore, he wanted to withdraw the amount from the bank so that he can organize a function and hand over cheques equivalent to their shares in the aforesaid amount. However, counsel for applicant fairly conceded that applicant has not given the share to respondent Nos.1 and 2 from the amount which he has withdrawn from UBI.

13. Thus, it is clear that the solitary intention of applicant is to usurp the amount left by Smt. Gayatri in her bank accounts maintained in Union Bank of India as well as Punjab National Bank.

1 4 . Since, according to applicant, an amount of Rs.54,798/- was deposited in Union Bank of India, accordingly, the share of the applicant as well as respondent No.1 would come to Rs.18,266/-, and the share of Rs. 18,266/- which was to be inherited by deceased Kaushal Kishore would be liable to be distributed amongst his legal representatives, namely Smt. Saroj Devi Sharma, Durgesh Sharma, Sunil Sharma, and Neetu Sharma. Admittedly, the said amount has not been paid by applicant.

15. Thus, it is clear that under the garb of nomination, the applicant has already usurped the rights of respondent No.1 and the legal representatives of respondent No.2. Therefore, contention of the applicant that his solitary intention to withdraw the amount was to hand over the shares to his siblings in a more respectable manner is nothing but an attempt to

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 20-01-2026 07:10:17 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2122

9 CR-19-2026 evade his liability to pay the share to his siblings.

16. Be that whatever it may be.

17. Undisputedly, the amount of Rs.4,88,790/- which is deposited in the bank account of Smt. Gayatri maintained in Punjab National Bank has not been withdrawn by anybody.

18. There is no dispute that the applicant, respondent No.1 Pushpa, and deceased Kaushal Kishore are siblings and have equal shares in the property left by Smt. Gayatri. As nomination would not make a nominee as the owner, and at the most his situation would be of trustee who would be holding the property for and on behalf of all legal heirs, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that real justice can be done by awarding an additional amount of Rs.18,266/- to respondent No.1 as well as to the legal representatives of respondent No.2 along with their shares in the amount of Rs.4,88,790/- maintained by Smt. Gayatri in the Punjab National Bank.

19. So far as the locker in Punjab National Bank is concerned, it is not known as to whether the same was to be operated by either survivor or with joint signatures of the persons mentioned in the bank record, but in view of the attitude of the applicant in usurping the shares of his siblings, this Court directs the Bank that the locker shall be operated only on the joint signatures of all the parties, i.e., the applicant, respondent No.1, and legal representatives of respondent No.2. Unless and until a joint application is filed by all the persons and they remain personally present before the bank, the locker shall not be opened.

20. Accordingly, the present civil revision is disposed of with the

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 20-01-2026 07:10:17 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2122

10 CR-19-2026 following directions:

(i.) The Punjab National Bank is directed to recalculate the amount in light of the total amount outstanding in the concerned bank account of Smt. Gayatri maintained in Punjab National Bank. The applicant, respondent No.1 and legal representatives of respondent No.2 are entitled for equal share in amount of Rs.4,88,790/- & interest which has already accrued.

(ii) Respondent No.1 and the legal representatives of respondent No.2 were also entitled to an amount of Rs.18,266/- each as their share from the amount deposited in Union Bank of India maintained by Smt. Gayatri and the same has not been paid by applicant to respondent No.1 and legal representatives of respondent No.2, therefore, respondent No.1 and legal representatives of respondent No.2 would be entitled to 1/3rd share in the amount deposited in Punjab National Bank + Rs.18,266/-, whereas the applicant shall be entitled to receive only 1/3rd share in the amount deposited in Punjab National Bank - Rs.36,532/-.

(iii) On filing a joint application by applicant, respondent No.1, and the legal representatives of respondent No. 2, they will be entitled to withdraw the same to the extent of their respective shares.

21. With aforesaid observations, the civil revision is finally disposed of.

(G. S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE

Aman

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 20-01-2026 07:10:17 PM