2025:JHHC:37057 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (S) No. 6813 of 2025 ----- Bahalen Guria aged about 79 years W/o Late Abraham Guria, resident of Flat No. 7021, 4th Floor Sundarvan Phase-1, Pardih, P.O. Azadnagar, P.S. Mango, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum. … Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The Union of India through Director General Border Security Force, Block No. 10, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, P.O. & P.S. Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003. 2. The deputy Inspector General, Head Office Border Security Force, P.O. & P.S. Ferozpur, District Punjab. 3. Smt. Dimpal Guria aged about years W/o Late Walter Guria, D/o Desmand Tuli resident of Birsa Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Birsa Nagar, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum. … Respondent(s). CORAM :SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Chandra, Advocate : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate : Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, Advocate For the respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Pallav,A.S. G.I. : Ms. Shreya Shukla, A.C. to A.S.G.I. …...... 04/10.12.2025: 1. Heard the parties. 2. Considering the nature of the order which I intend to pass and the position of the law which is well settled, it is not necessary to call for the counter affidavit. 3. The petitioner before me is the mother of Walter Guria who was appointed as Commandant in Border Security Force (BSF). Unfortunately, he died on 28.10.2024 while in service. The deceased has left behind his wife, one daughter, one son and this petitioner who is the mother. In the nomination form, the wife was nominated to receive all the death benefits. This petitioner claiming to be the mother also raisedobjectionand claimed that the amount should be disbursed to her. The aforesaid prayer of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the nomination is in the name of his wife which cannot be ruled out. 4. I find no illegality in the action of the respondents.It is well settled that nomination only indicates that who is authorized to receive the amounts. Nomination has got nothing to do with succession. Even a person, who is not in the line of succession, can also be nominated to 2025:JHHC:37057 2 receive an amount, but once he receives the same, the amount has to be disbursed according to the law of succession governing the parties. The nominee receives the amount as a trustee. 5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarbati Devi v. Usha Devi reported in (1984) 1 SCC 424, held that nomination only indicates the hand which is authorized to receive the amount. The said amount, however, can be claimed by the heirsin accordance with the law of succession. 6. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shakti Yezdani v. Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar,reported in (2024) 4 SCC 42, held that nomination made would not lead to the nominee attaining any absolute title over the subject property for which the nomination was made. Usual mode of succession is not impacted by such nomination. 7. These two judgments have been heavily relied upon by the Hon’ ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment of Bolla Malathi v. B Suguna & Ors. reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 2715. 8. Thus, from the aforesaid judgment and the law which is well settled, it is clear that the nominee receives the amount as a trustee and the general law of succession which the parties are covered by is not disturbed by such nomination. All the legal heirs have the right over the money as per succession, which the nominee receives. Thus, the respondents cannot be said to have committed any illegality by disbursing the amount to his wife, who admittedly is the nominee. 9. In this context, it is clear that the right of the mother as per the succession law cannot be curtailed by this nomination. The nominee i.e. the wife in this case should secure that the legal heirs of the deceased receives the amount in proportionate share as per their law of succession, which the nominee is receiving. Further, it is open for the petitioner, to make necessary claimand assert her rights as per the succession law under which both the parties are governed. 10. This Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot decide the share which as per the succession law, the parties are entitled to. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of with the observation made above. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Jharkhand High Court Rashmi/- A.F.R. Uploaded On: 15.12.2025