Rashmi Bharti alias Pinki vs. Pankaj Kumar & Ors AIR 2012 Patna 160 (High Court)
The District Judge, Patna in a succession case had directed for issuance of Succession Certificate in favour of the applicant/respondent no. 1 in accordance with provisions contained in Section 377 of the Indian Succession Act. Respondent no. 1 had filed an application for grant of succession certificate in the court of District Judge, in his favour in respect of estate of Late Sanjeev Kumar, i.e. insurance policy standing in the name of Late Sanjeev Kumar for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- procured from National Insurance Co. Ltd. under Golden Trust Financial Service. The respondent no. 1/ applicant, had arrayed estate of Late Sanjeev Kumar, as opposite party no. 1, widow of Late Sanjeev Kumar as opposite party no. 2 (who is appellant in this appeal). It was disclosed by the applicant/respondent No. 1 before the court below that his own brother, deceased Sanjeev Kumar had taken an insurance policy of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 8.7.2002. Marriage of Sanjeev Kumar was solemnised with appellant (Smt. Rashmi Bharti) on 24.6.2002, whereas, while taking insurance policy on 8.7.2002 i.e. after the marriage of Sanjeev Kumar with appellant (Rashmi Bharti), the applicants (Respondent No. 1) name was given as nominee in the insurance policy. Subsequently, Sanjeev Kumar was murdered. It was disclosed by the applicant (Respondent No. 1) before the court below that his brother was killed on 3.4.2003. Since the applicant (Respondent No. 1) was nominee in the said policy, he approached the respondent no. 5 / Golden Trust Financial Service for payment of the insurance amount but insurance company demanded Succession Certificate. Thereafter, he filed an application for grant of succession certificate in respect of insurance policy.
The appellant disclosed that the dispute between the parties were already settled in another succession case filed by the appellant (Rashmi Bharti). It was further claimed that she being legally married wife of Late Sanjeev Kumar, she had got statutory right to inherit in toto the estate of Sanjeev Kumar to the exclusion of all other relatives of Late Sanjeev Kumar. Besides this, the appellant further asserted that after the death of her husband Late Sanjeev Kumar, the Respondent No. 1 had also obtained Rs. 50,000/- from the account of Late Sanjeev Kumar lying in Punjab National Bank. The appellant herself had accepted that subsequent to death of her husband Late Sanjeev Kumar, she had married one Arun Sao. It was submitted that the applicant/ respondent No. 1 was only nominated by her Late husband to get the amount from the insurance company, whereas, the appellant as Class I heir was entitled to get the entire amount of the insurance policy. He submits that law in respect of nominee has already been settled by the Apex Court in a case reported in AIR 1984 SC 346 (Smt. Sarbati Devi and another v. Smt. Usha Devi).
The Court observed that it is not in dispute that only being nominee in the policy taken by the deceased Sanjeev Kumar, the respondent no. 1 was not entitled to claim succession certificate in his favour in respect of insurance policy of deceased Sanjeev Kumar. Only on the basis of being nominee he was not entitled to claim. The issue regarding the right of a nominee is no longer res integra. It has already been settled in Sarbati Devi Case (Supra). In the present case, it is not in dispute that the appellant after the death of her husband had remarried, and as such, she had forfeited her right to claim any interest in the property of her deceased husband. Remarriage of a widow stands legalised by reason of the incorporation of the Act of 1956 but on her remarriage, she forfeits the right to obtain any benefit from her deceased husband’s estate and Section 2 of the Act of 1856 is very specific that the estate in that event would pass on to the next heir of her deceased husband as if she were dead.
In view of the aforesaid, the court held that the appellant herself had initially filed succession case vide Succession Case No. 123 of 2004, and thereafter, she agreed to withdraw the said case after accepting certain amount. This fact regarding compromise in between the parties was admitted by the appellant in her written statement filed before the court below. Once after compromise she had withdrawn the succession case, at subsequent stage, the appellant shall not be entitled to claim any succession right in the property of her husband (deceased), that too, after being remarried.
The district Judge rightly allowed the issuance of succession certificate in favour of Respondent No. 1 (brother of deceased)
