[2025:RJ-JP:44848] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5455/2019 1. Rekha W/o Om Prakash And D/o Lalaram, R/o Village Karili, Tehsil Nadbai, Distt. Bharatpur (Rajasthan). 2. Aryan S/o Late Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 9 Years, (Minor) Through His Mother And Natural Guardian Smt. Rekha W/o Om Prakash And D/o Lalaram, R/o Village Karili, Tehsil Nadbai, Distt. Bharatpur (Rajasthan). ----Appellants (Non- applicants) Versus 1. Sondei W/o Hari Singh, R/o Village Gangroli, Tehsil Nadbai, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.) 2. Hari Singh S/o Late Chiranji SinghR/o Village Gangroli, Tehsil Nadbai, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.) ------- (applicants) 3. Public, At Large 4. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Defence, Government Of India, New Delhi. 5. Record Officer, Rajputana Rifles, Pin 900016, C/o. 56 Apo. 6. Army Wives Welfare Association, C/o. 56 Ags. Branch Integrated Head Office Of Mod (Army), Dho. P.o. New Delhi-110011 (Order Dt. 1.2.2013) Through Deleted. 7. Army Commanding Officer, Group Insurance Fund, Sa. Bha. Bhawan, Rao Tularam Marg, Po Basant Bihar, New Delhi-57. 8. State Bank Of India, Branch Nadbai, Distt. Bharatpur Through Branch Manager. 9. State Bank Of India, Branch Dogra Regiment, Faizabad, Distt. Faizabad (U.p) Through Branch Manager. 10. Life Insurance Corporation Of India, Branch Deeg, Tehsil Deeg, Distt. Bharatpur Through Branch Manager. 11. District Sainik Welfare Office, Bharatpur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prakash Chandra Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.K. Moolchandani with Ms. Anupama Dhamaniya [2025:RJ-JP:44848] (2 of 8) [CMA-5455/2019] Ms. Manjeet Kaur with Ms. Disha Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 03/07/2025 1. Instant Civil Misc. Appeal is preferred by appellants Rekha (wife of deceased) and minor son (Aryan) through natural guardian and her mother, aggrieved from judgment dated 13.09.2019 in civil misc. case No. 62/2011 (CIS No. 73/2014) passed by learned District Judge, Bharatpur in a petition filed by Sondei and Hari Singh (parents of deceased) under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that husband of appellant Rekha who was serving in Indian Army has expired in an accident on 12.05.2010 at Meerut leaving behind appellants as survivors. He further submitted that after death of Om Parkash, a series of litigations were launched before the Army Tribunal, MACT and in the Court of ACJM Bharatpur wherein appellants were unable to put their grievances due to illiteracy, misinformation and due to economic crisis. He further submitted that the parents of deceased-Om Parkash have preferred an application under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act and ignoring the entire material and Army Rules with regard to distribution and entitlements of benefits after death of any army personnel, the District Court has passed an order directing the apportionment of benefits among appellants and respondent No.1. He further submitted that a civil Court cannot go beyond the rules and it has no authority to consider the case of any person beyond the rules. He also submitted that wife [2025:RJ-JP:44848] (3 of 8) [CMA-5455/2019] and minor son are only beneficiary as a nominee to receive the death benefits of deceased. 3. Learned counsel for appellant further referred provision of Section 370, 212 and 213 and submitted that the parents have no locus under Section 372 of Succession Act to file a petition to claim their share in movable property such as benefits arising from service. He further referred a previous civil suit for injunction which was dismissed by the Civil Court and further an appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Court but despite the decree of civil Court the District Court has passed an order under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act. He also submitted that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not challenged the order of Civil Court to higher forum and without challenging the order, which attained finality, same operate as res judicata and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are estopped from pursuing any remedy before any Civil Court. He also submitted that as per Army rules, the appellants are only person entitled to receive the benefits after death of Om Parkash. He further submitted that the parents are neither dependent upon deceased Om Parkash and nor were they appointed as nominee to receive benefits under the service rules. At last, he submitted that the impugned judgment is contrary to settled proposition of law, and same is liable to be set aside. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondent(s) Nos. 1 and 2 and he submitted that the rules of succession is applicable in every circumstances whether it is service benefit or succession of any property. He further submitted that the Hindu Succession Act is applicable as the parties are Hindus and as per Hindu Succession Act both the appellants and [2025:RJ-JP:44848] (4 of 8) [CMA-5455/2019] respondent No.1 are Class-I heirs and they are entitled to succeed equally in the property left by deceased. He further submitted that a Civil suit is filed by respondent(s) for injunction against the disbursement till decision of succession application. He further submitted that the dismissal of civil suit and the appeal does not impact the proceeding under Section 372 of Succession Act. He also submitted that the legal position is that a nominee is just a trustee of the property left by deceased but same is subject to applicability of rule of succession. He also submitted that the respondents have filed an application disclosing the ground that there was a matrimonial dispute between deceased Om Parkash and appellant No.1. He also submitted that appellant No.1 is residing in her father’s house and she is not taking care of respondents who are parents of deceased. He further submitted that the material on record is sufficient to draw a conclusion that issue of succession can only be decided by a Civil Court and not by any Tribunal. He further submitted that for division and distribution, the appropriate proceedings under the law is available under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act and the proceedings is maintainable. He also submitted that the Army Rule is no applicable in relation to succession of property by legal heirs. 5. The contentions of appellants were supported by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7. She also submitted that the Army Rules are applicable in the instant case and on basis of Army Rules, the issue of succession has to be decided and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are not entitled to any share in death terminal benefits belonging to Late Om Parkash. [2025:RJ-JP:44848] (5 of 8) [CMA-5455/2019] 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 7. The brief facts of the case are that late Om Parkash (husband of present appellant-Rekha and father of appellant No.2- Aryan) who was serving at ‘4 RAJ RIF’ met with an accident on 12.05.2010 resulting in his death. As per the procedure, the army has granted family pension and other terminal benefits to Smt. Rekha Devi (Wife of deceased). The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have instituted a litigation before the Armed Force Tribunal (AFT), and also in the Court of ACJM, Bharatpur. A proceeding under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act is also instituted wherein on 13.09.2019, learned District Judge, Bharatpur has directed equal distribution of death terminal benefits to Sondei (mother of deceased), Rekha (wife of deceased) and Aryan (minor son of deceased). Aggrieved appellants Rekha and her minor son have filed the instant appeal. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India and Army has referred the order dated 22.07.2010 in Original Application No. 96/2010 passed by the Army Forced Tribunal (Army) Jaipur on an application of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (parents of deceased)- and same is reproduced as under:- "The applicants are directed approach the concerned authorities by moving an application for relief of distribution of death benefits of deceased Om Prakash amongst the applicants and wife of deceased. The concerned authorities are directed to consider as per Rules the application submitted vis-a-vis claim of the wife of deceased Om Prakash. The present original application is disposed of accordingly." 9. Aforesaid indicate that no specific order is passed by the AFT about distribution except a right to approach concerned authorities [2025:RJ-JP:44848] (6 of 8) [CMA-5455/2019] with direction to proceed in accordance with rules. In the year 2011, an application under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act is filed by parents of late Om Parkash and following order is passed by the learned District Judge:- "The instant Civil Appeal filed by the applicants under Article 372 of Indian Succession Act is hereby allowed and respondents are directed to share equal ration of 1/3 among Smt. Sondei, Smt. Rekha and minor son Prince alias Aryan of amount balance if any out of Gratuity amount Rs. 3,50,000/-, amount received from AGI Rs. 15,00,000/-, GPF amount Rs. 2,00,000/-, the outstanding payment of deceased soldier and family pension, deposit amount of deceased soldier Rs.76,000/- in savings account No. 30519534555 SBI, DOGRA Reft, Faizabad and LIC Policy amount Rs. 50,000/- as per rules and regulation by providing succession certificate to Prince alias Aryan son of Smt. Rekha as guardian being his mother." 10. The case of appellant is that as per provisions, rules and others memorandum issued by the Army and Union of India and further nomination by late Sh. Om Parkash during his lifetime Smt. Radha Devi (wife) is entitled to receive all death and terminal benefits. The admission by the appellant in their appeal clearly indicate that a claim case under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act is filed before the MACT, and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has granted sufficient money to respondents Sondei and Hari Singh. The admission clearly indicate that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were considered as one of the beneficiary (dependent) under the Motor Vehicle Act to receive compensation on death of Om Prakash in a road traffic accident. 11. A serious question is raised about a fact that appellant No.1 Rekha was nominated by late Om Parkash as nominee. The legal position with regard to a nominee is very clear. A nominee is recorded as a trustee who temporarily holds the assets of the [2025:RJ-JP:44848] (7 of 8) [CMA-5455/2019] deceased until the legal heirs are identified and succession is established, either through a Will or on basis of applicable succession laws. The role of nominee does not confine any possession and ownership of the asset but instead the nominee’s duty is to facilitate eventual transfer to the rightful legal heirs. 12. In case of Smt. Sarbati Devi & Anr. v. Smt. Usha Devi (1984) 1 SCC 424, Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the situation of nomination under the Life Insurance Act held that a nominee did not contemplate a statutory testament and the amount paid to a nominee on the death of a policyholder would form part of the estate of deceased. This would eventually devolve upon the heirs in accordance with the personal laws of the succession applicable to the deceased. The legal position till date is well-settled and it is sufficient to draw a conclusion that a nomination does not confer absolute ownership as the intent behind the provision is to facilitate in direct investment to exercise governance rights. A nominee is appointed to manage the accounts or assets of the deceased person but nomination does not equate to ownership of the funds or assets. 13. The legal heirs are those individuals who are entitled to exercise the assets of the deceased as per personal law i.e. Hindu Succession Act in current case. If there is any dispute about the original heir or share of the money the adjudication by a Civil Court under the law is appropriate remedy and everyone has to follow the judgment of Civil Court, therefore, considering the legal position about status of nominee and legal heirs as explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Smt. Sarbati Devi & Anr. v. Smt. Usha Devi (supra), Shipra Sengupta vs Mridul [2025:RJ-JP:44848] (8 of 8) [CMA-5455/2019] Sengupta & Ors. (2009) 10 SCC 680 and Ranjit Rai Vs. Rotiwala (2024) SCC Online SC 1123 the legal heirs have a right to claim the assets left by the deceased, even from or the nominee, even if nominee is paid first by the company or the bank or by any employer. 14. Considering the legal position, the Court of District Judge has an authority to adjudicate the issue of distribution and appointment of monetary assets among the legal heirs of late Om Parkash and it has committed no mistake while adjudicating the claim of respondent No.1 Sondei under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act. The objections raised by learned counsel for appellant about the litigation before the ACJM, Bharatpur or the AFT, Jaipur Bench or provision of Sections 212, 213 or 370 are not at all tenable. 15. The Hindu Succession Act clearly provides that the mother is Class-I heir and she succeeds equally with wife and son, therefore denial of share to mother gives a right to her to approach the Civil Court. The law of succession is different than the statutory rules providing death and termination benefits to nominee, therefore, the grounds on which this appeal is preferred is not tenable and same is liable to be dismissed. 16. In view of discussions made hereinabove, the misc. appeal preferred by appellants is hereby dismissed with pending application(s), if any. 17. No order as to costs. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MONU /82-S