Joint Holder or Nominee is the Question

When it comes to estate planning, the most basic form of planning is a joint ownership of assets and a nomination. However, there is a fair deal of confusion as to the difference between these two and which is superior of the two. Let us examine the meaning of these two very important tools and when to use which.

JOINT HOLDING
A joint holder as the name suggests is joint in ownership along with the 1st holder or the main holder. Joint ownership could be in respect of bank accounts, demat accounts, share certificates, flat ownership certificates, etc. A joint holding is the opposite of a single / sole ownership. Depending upon the mode of joint holding, in certain assets, the joint holder can operate the assets along with or after the lifetime of the primary holder. To illustrate in the case of bank accounts, the following modes are possible:

(a)    Either or Survivor – under this mode, either of the joint holders can operate the account. Moreover after the death of the primary member, the joint holder would automatically become the sole holder of the account.

(b)    Former or Survivor – under this mode, the joint holders can operate the account only after the death of the primary member. Once the primary member dies, the joint holder would automatically become the sole holder of the account. However, during the lifetime of the primary member, the joint holder cannot operate the account.

Table F of Schedule I to the Companies Act, 2013 lays down the model Articles of Association of a limited company. Clause 23 of this Table F provides that on death of a joint holder of shares, the survivor member would alone be recognised by the company as having any title to his interest in the shares.

NOMINATION
Nomination is something which is extremely popular nowadays and is increasingly being used in co-operative housing societies, depository/demat accounts, mutual funds, Government bonds/securities, shares, bank accounts, etc. Nomination is something which is advisable in all cases even when the asset is held in joint names. Simply put, a nomination means that the owner of the asset has designated another person in his place after his death.

The legal position in this respect is crystal clear. Once a person dies, his interest stands transferred to the person nominated by him. Thus, a nomination is a facility to provide the society, company, depository, etc., with a face which whom it can deal with on the death of a person. On the death of the person and up to the execution of the estate, a legal vacuum is created. Nomination aims to plug this legal vacuum. A nomination is only a legal relationship created between the society, company, depository, bank, etc. and the nominee.

The nomination seeks to avoid any confusion in cases where the will has not been executed or where there are disputes between the heirs. It is only an interregnum between the death and the full administration of the estate of the deceased.   

A nomination continues only up to and until such time as the will is implemented. No sooner the will is implemented, it takes precedence over the nomination. Nomination does not confer any permanent right upon the nominee nor does it create any beneficial right in his favour. Nomination transfers no beneficial interest to the nominee. A nominee is for all purposes a trustee of the property. He cannot claim precedence over the legatees mentioned in the will and take the bequests which the legatees are entitled to under the will.

The Supreme Court in the case of Sarbati Devi vs. Usha Devi, 55 Comp. Cases 214 (SC), in the context of a nomination under a life insurance policy held that a mere nomination made 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. Once again in the case of Vishin Khanchandani vs. Vidya Khanchandani, 246 ITR 306 (SC), the Supreme Court examined the National Savings Certificate Act and various other provisions and held that, the nominee is only an administrative holder. Any amount paid to a nominee is part of the estate of the deceased which devolves upon all persons as per the succession law and the nominee must return the payment to those in whose favour the law creates a beneficial interest. Again, in Shipra Sengupta v Mridul Sengupta, (2009) 10 SCC 680, the Supreme Court upheld the superiority of a legal heir as opposed to a nominee in the context of a nomination made under a Public Provident Fund.

The Supreme Court reinforced its view on a nominee being a mere agent to receive proceeds under a life insurance policy in Challamma vs. Tilaga (2009) 9 SCC 299. In Ramesh Chander Talwar vs. Devender Kumar Talwar, (2010) 10 SCC 671, the Supreme Court upheld the right of the legal heirs to receive the amount lying in the deceased’s bank deposit to the exclusion of the nominee. A similar view has been taken by the Bombay High Court in Nozer Gustad Commissariat vs. Central Bank of India, 1993(2) Bom.C.R.8 and Antonio Jaoa Fernandes vs. Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner, 2010(3) All MR 599 in respect of balance standing in the employee provident fund of the deceased.

The position of a nominee in a flat in a co-operative housing society was analysed by the Supreme Court in Indrani Wahi vs. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, CA NO. 4646of 2006(SC). The Supreme Court held that there can be no doubt that the holding of a valid nomination does not ipso facto result in the transfer of title in the flat in favour of the nominee. However, consequent upon a valid nominationhaving been made, the nominee would be entitled to possession of the flat. Further, the issue of title had to be left open to be adjudicated upon between the contesting parties. It further held that there can be no doubt, that where a member of a cooperative society nominates a person, the cooperative society is mandated to transfer all the share or interest of such member in the name of the nominee.The Supreme Court concluded, that it was open to the other members of thefamily of the deceased, to pursue their case of succession or inheritance in respect of the flat, in consonance with the law.

The position was a bit murky when it came to a nomination in respect of shares in a company or a depositary account. The Companies Act, 2013 in the form of section 72 read with Rule 19 of the Companies (Share Capital and Debentures) Rules, 2014 (in respect of nomination for physical shares) and Bye Law 9.11 made under the Depositories Act, 1996 (which deals with nomination for securities held in a dematerialised format) provide that any nomination made in respect of shares or debentures of a company, if made in the prescribed manner, shall, on the death of the shareholder/debenture holder, prevail over any law or any testamentary disposition, i.e., a will. A Single Judge of the Bombay High Court explained this proposition in the case of Harsha Nitin Kokate vs. The Saraswat Co-op. Bank Ltd, 112 (5) Bom. L.R. 2014 that upon the death of a shareholder, the shares would “vest” in the nominee. A nominee became entitled to all the rights attached to the shares to the exclusion of all others regardless of anything stated in any other disposition, testamentary or otherwise. The Court concluded that the Legislature’s intent under the Companies Act and the Depositories Act, 1996 was very clear, i.e., to vest the property in the shares in the nominee alone in supersession of the testamentary/intestate succession. Another Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, had an occasion to consider the above provisions of the Companies Act and the earlier decision of the Bombay High Court in Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar vs. Jayashree Jayant Salgaonkar and others, Notice of Motion No. 822/2014 in Suit No. 503/2014. It held that the earlier decision of Harsha Nitin Kokate vs. The Saraswat Co-op. Bank Ltd was rendered per incuriam, i.e., without reference to several binding Supreme Court and Bombay High Court decisions.

A nomination, if held supreme, wholly defenestrates the Indian Succession Act. According to the judgment in Harsha Nitin Kokate, a nomination becomes a “Super-Will” one that has none of the defining traits of a proper Will. Thus, a nomination, even under the Companies Act only provides the company or the depository a quittance. A nominee only continues to hold the securities in trust and as a fiduciary for the legal heirs under Succession Law.

A division bench of the Bombay High Court in Shaktia Yezdani vs. Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar, Appeal No. 313/2015 Order dated 01.12.2016 considered both the earlier Single Judge decisions. It also analysed all the Supreme Court and High Court decisions on the superiority of a will over a nomination. It held that the provisions of the Companies Act are not materially different from the provisions of other Acts which provide for nomination. A nomination does not become a testamentary disposition under the Indian Succession Act.  As has been consistently held, a nominee does not get an absolute title to the property. Nomination never overrides testamentary or intestate succession. The legislative intent by virtue of the Companies Act is not to make nomination a third mode of succession after testamentary or intestate succession.  It concluded that the provisions of the Companies Act have nothing to do with the law of succession. Hence, the view of the Single Judge in Harsha Nitin Kokate’s case (supra) was incorrect and that of the Single Judge in Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar was correct. Thus, the Division Bench has, for the time being, placed nomination even under the Companies Act / Depositories Act, at par with nomination for other assets, i.e., subservient to a will/ intestate succession.

WHICH IS SUPERIOR – JOINT HOLDING OR NOMINATION?
The big question which most people are asking is that what should be done – a joint ownership or a nomination of both? A joint holder is definitely on a higher pedestal as compared to a nominee since he is already entered as an owner. All that the bank/depositary participant /society needs to do is to strike out the name of the deceased primary member and take the joint holder on record as the primary member. So the descending order of hierarchy when it comes to succession planning would be Will – Joint Holding – Nomination. Of course, one can even place a trust right at the top of the pyramid. Thus, in cases where one is certain that after him the asset should go to a particular person then a joint holding is definitely advisable, e.g., in the case of a husband and a wife. In addition, a nomination may be created as an alternative beneficiary, e.g., in favour of the child of the couple. If there are joint holders, the nomination must be signed by all the joint holders and the nominee’s right would arise only when all the joint holders die.

One overarching fact to be borne in mind is that neither a joint holder nor a nomination creates a legal ownership over the asset in question. That is determined solely on the basis of the will (in cases of testamentary succession) or by the intestate law (e.g., the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in case of Hindus dying intestate or Indian Succession Act for Parsis dying intestate).

It is advisable that the fact of joint holding/nomination is also reproduced in the will of the person. Moreover, the beneficiaries under the will should be co-terminus with the joint holders/nominees wherever possible to avoid any variance and disputes. Further, always have a habit of reviewing all joint holdings and nominations. There have been several instances of people making nominations or adding joint holders long back and then forgetting about it. In many cases, these past actions come back to haunt the family of the deceased by causing succession hurdles.

CONCLUSION
Considering the confusion and myths surrounding succession planning, joint ownership, nomination, is it not time to entirely redo the Indian Succession Act, 1925? Is it right to interpret succession issues in the light of a 92-year old Act? There should be a comprehensive law dealing with all forms and modes of estate planning across various asset classes. That would go a long way in reducing the pending litigation before our judiciary since a large number of cases pertain to succession disputes!