1 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 196 of 2024 Order Reserved on: 15.9.2025 Order Delivered on: 19.11.2025 • Rahul Kumar Dhruve S/o Non Applicant No. 3 Bhaddelal Dhruve Aged About 34 Years R/o Kanchanpur Tahsil And District Dindori Madhya Pradesh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1. Public General Nil. 2. Branch Manager Bank Of India Branch Mungeli District Mungeli Chhattisgarh As Per Honble Court Order Dated 15-01-2025 And 17-03-2025. 3. Lallaram S/o Late Ramarao Pradhan Aged About 60 Years R/o Kathotiya Post Dindori Police Station And Tahsil Lormi District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Kishan Kumar Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Awadh Tripathi, RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 3 : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following reliefs:- “It is therefore, prayed that revision petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 04.11.2024 passed by Learned Principal District Judge Mungeli District Mungeli in Civil MJC NO 130/2024 be set aside and the order dated 10.09.2024 passed senior Division 1st Civil judge by the learned Mungeli District Mungeli C.G, in succession case No 09/2021 may be sustained in the interest of justice.” 2. The applicant has preferred this revision being aggrieved by the order dated 4.11.2024 whereby an application filed by respondent No. 3 Lallaram for grant of succession certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 on account of death of Ranjana Devi Pradhan and to get amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- deposited in the account of late Ranjana Devi Pradhan has been partly allowed by the 1st Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mungeli vide its order dated 10.9.2024 and against the said order when an appeal was preferred by said respondent No. 3 Lallaram the appeal was allowed in favour of Lalla Ram and for the entire amount succession certificate has been directed to be issued in favour of Lallaram. The present applicant has challenged the 3 order passed by the appellate Court while setting aside order of the 1st Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mungeli while allowing the appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case, is that, the applicant has preferred this revision, being aggrieved by the order dated 4.11.2024, whereby an application filed by respondent No. 3, Lalla Ram, for the grant of a succession certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, on account of the death of Ranjana Devi Pradhan, to claim Rs. 15,00,000/- deposited in her account, was partly allowed by the 1st Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mungeli, vide order dated 10.9.2024. When an appeal was filed by Lalla Ram against the said order, the appellate Court allowed the appeal and directed that the succession certificate be issued in his favor for the entire amount. The applicant challenged the appellate Court’s order setting aside the trial Court’s decision. Briefly, the applicant had filed an application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act seeking a succession certificate to claim Rs. 15,00,000/- deposited in the Bank of India, Mungeli Branch, following the death of Ranjana Devi Pradhan. It was contended that the deceased’s son-in-law, Lalla Ram, was entitled to the amount; however, the bank manager advised obtaining a succession certificate. The trial Court, after considering the pleadings and evidence, held that both the applicant and respondent No. 3 were entitled to the amount but ultimately awarded it to respondent No. 3 based on his nomination by the 4 deceased. Aggrieved, Lalla Ram appealed, and the appellate Court held that nomination alone does not entitle a person to the property, and as a near maternal relative of the deceased under Section 15(2)(b) of the Indian Succession Act, he was entitled to inherit the property. The trial Court erred in conferring ownership on the nominee, who is merely a custodian. Evidence showed that Lalla Ram, being the father-in-law of the deceased, was the rightful heir, and the appellate Court rightly issued the succession certificate in his favor. The revisional Court found no illegality or perversity in the appellate Court’s order, as it had correctly applied the law, considered the evidence, and followed the principles established under the Hindu Succession Act and Supreme Court precedents. Accordingly, the revision filed by the applicant is dismissed, and the appellate Court’s order is upheld. 4. It was pleaded by the applicant that the son-in-law of the deceased Ranjana Devi Pradhan who was posted as Women Medical Representative at village- Kanchanpur and was having an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- deposited in the fixed deposit Account No. 943045110000668 in the Bank of India, Mungeli. When the applicant met with the manager of the respective bank in order to get the aforesaid amount of late Ranjana Devi Pradhan the concerned Bank Manager has directed to obtain a succession certificate so that the amount may be disburse in his favour as such the application was filed which was registered being Succession Case No. 9/2021. 5 5. The concerned trial Court issued notice to the concerned parties upon which the non applicant No. 3 Rahul Dhruwe has filed a reply while objecting the succession case as filed by the applicant, respondent No. 3 herein stating that after the death of husband of late Ranjana Devi Pradhan she was abundant from her matrimonial house after social divorce and the non applicant No. 3 has been nominated as nominee in the account No. 943045110000668 in which a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- has been deposited. 6. The learned trial Court on the pleadings of the parties has framed issues in this case and have taken evidence and after taking evidence of the parties has held that the applicant as well as respondent No. 3 both are entitled to get the amount of Rs. 15,00,000/-. The learned trial Court has held that the objection as raised by respondent No. 3 is seems to be plausible and hence, while rejecting claim of Lallaram the amount deposited in the account No. 943045110000668 worth Rs. 15,00,000/- has been held to be required to pay to non applicant No. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.9.2024, Lallaram has filed an appeal before the appellate Court in which learned appellate Court after considering the material aspect of the matter has held that so far as claim of respondent No. 3 is concerned only on the basis of nominee he is not entitled to get amount deposited by late Ranjana Devi Pradhan. 6 7. In the present case Lallaram is the near maternal relative of late Ranjana Devi Pradhan as such he is entitled to get properties of late Ranjana Devi Pradhan. 8. The trial Court has committed an error of law while holding on the basis of nominee made by late Ranjana Devi Pradhan the non applicant No. 3 is entitled to get the said property. 9. The nominee is being made only for the purpose of custodian on the property left by the concerned party. They are not having any right upon the said property they are mere custodians of the said property. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order dated 4.11.2024 passed by the Principal District Judge, Mungeli is apparently bad in law. He further submits that the Principal District Judge has committed an error of law while allowing the appeal. He further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the person who has been appointed as nominee he is entitled to get the property left by the person concerned. He further submits that once any person has been made nominee of any amount deposited by the deceased account holder the property for the amount would certainly devolved in favour of the person concerned who has appointed as nominee. He further submits that if the nominee is not entitled then there is no purpose of the nomination to be made by the concerned person. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that being nominee of any person could not intail said nominee to 7 be entitled to get the said property. He further submits the nominee is are being made to look after the property as custodian of the property they are mere custodians and they are not having any right over the said property. He further submits that deceased Ranjana Devi Pradhan was a Hindu and as such Hindu Succession Act, 1956 shall be applied in her case. He further submits that since the deceased was issue less and the said Lallaram was the father-in-law of late Ranjana Devi Pradhan he cannot be declared to be legal heir. He further submits that he can claim being the father-in-law of the deceased. He further submits that respondent No. 3 is only custodian of the amount is not a rightful owner. The custodians cannot be considered to be owner or title holder of the property. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court has also considered the aforesaid aspect as decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid matter in the matter of Shakti Yezdani vs. Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar reported in 2016 SCC Online Bom 9834 has held has under:- “34. The provisions relating to nominations under the various enactments have been consistently interpreted by the apex court by holding that the nominee does not get absolute title to the property subject matter of the nomination. The reason is by its very nature, when a shareholder or a deposit holder or an insurance policy holder or a member of a co-operative society makes a 8 nomination during his life time, he does not transfer his interest in favour of the nominee. It is always held that the nomination does not override the law in relation to testamentary or intestate succession. The provisions regarding nomination are made with a view to ensure that the estate or the rights of the deceased subject matter of the nomination are protected till the legal representatives of the deceased take appropriate steps. None of the provisions of the aforesaid statutes providing for nominations deal with the succession, testamentary or non- testamentary. As observed by the apex court, the legislative intention is not to provide a third kind of succession. In Sarbati Devi v. Usha Devi (1984) 55 C-C214 (SC); AIR 1984 SC 346, the apex court held in paragraph 5 which reads thus (page 218 of 55 C-C):” “But the summary of the relevant provisions of section 39 given above establishes clearly that the policyholder continues to hold interest in the policy during his lifetime and the nominee acquires no sort of interest in the policy during the lifetime of the policyholder. If that is so, on the death of the policyholder, the amount payable under the policy becomes part of his estate which is governed by the law of succession applicable to him. Such succession may be testamentary or intestate. There is no warrant for the position that section 39 of the Act operates as a third 9 kind of succession which is styled as a 'statutory testament in paragraph 16 of the decision of the Delhi High Court in Smt. Uma Sehgal v. Dwarka Dass Sehgal, ILR 1981 Delhi 315: AIR 1982 Delhi 36: [1983] 54 Comp Cas 842 (Delhi). If section 39 of the Act is contrasted with section 38 of the Act which provides for transfer or assignment of the rights under a policy the tenuous character of the right of a nominee would become more pronounced. It is difficult to hold that section 39 of the Act was intended to act as a third mode of succession provided by the statute The provision in sub section (6) of section. 39 which says that the amount shall be payable to the nominee or nominees does not mean that the amount shall belong to the nominee or nominees. We have to bear in mind here the special care which law and judicial precedents take in the matter of execution and proof of wills which have the effect of diverting the estate from the ordinary course of intestate succession and that the rigour of the rules governing the testamentary succession is not relaxed even where wills are registered." (emphasis added). The object of the provisions of the Companies Act is not to either provide a mode of succession or to deal with succession. The object of section 109A is to ensure that the deceased shareholder is represented by some one as 10 the value of the shares is subject to market forces. Various advantages keep on accruing to shareholders. For example, allotment of bonus shares. There are general meetings held of the companies in which a shareholder is required to be represented. The provision is enacted to ensure that the commerce does not suffer due to delay on the part of the legal heirs in establishing their rights of succession and claiming the shares of a company...” 12. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shakti Yezdani & Another vs. Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar & Ors reported in (2024) 4 SCC 642 has observed as under:- “40. In an illuminating list of precedents, this Court as well as several High Courts have dealt with the concept of "nomination" under legislations like the Government Savings Certificates Act, 1959, the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the Life Insurance Act, 1939 (quaere Insurance Act, 1938) and the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It would be apposite to refer to what the Court said on nomination, in reference to these legislations:” Case Law/Precedent Held Sarbati Devi v. Usha Nomination under Section 39 of 11 Devi the Insurance Act, 1938 is subject to the claim of heirs of the assured under the law of succession. Nozer Gustad Commissariat v. Central Bank of India Nomination under Section 10(2) of the EPF & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 cannot be made in favour of a non-family person. Relied upon Sarbati Devi³ to state that the principles therein were applicable to the Employees Provident Funds Act as well and not merely restricted to the Insurance Act. Vishin N. Khanchandani v. Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani Nominee entitled to receive the sum due on the savings certificate under Section 6(1) of the Govt. Savings Certificates Act, 1959, but cannot utilise it. In fact, the nominee may retain the same for those entitled to it under the relevant law of succession. Ram Chander Talwar v. Devender Kumar Talwar Nomination made under the provisions of Section 45-ZA of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 entitled the nominee to receive the deposit amount on the death of the depositor. 41. A consistent view appears to have been taken by the courts, while interpreting the related provisions of nomination under different statutes. It is d clear from the referred judgments that the nomination so made 12 would not lead to the nominee attaining absolute title over the subject property for which such nomination was made. In other words, the usual mode of succession is not to be impacted by such nomination. The legal heirs therefore have not been exchuded by virtue of nomination. 42. The presence of the three elements i.e. the term "vest", the provision excluding others as well as a non obstante clause under Section 109-A of the Companies Act, 1956 have not persuaded us in the interpretation to be accorded vis-à-vis nomination, in any different manner. Different legislations with provisions pertaining to nomination that have been a subject of adjudication carlier before courts, have little or no similarity with respect to the language used or the provisions contained therein. While the Government Savings Certificates Act, 1959, the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and the Public Debts Act, 1944 contain a non obstante clause, the Insurance Act, 1939 and the Cooperative Societies Act, 1912 do not. 43. Similarly, there are variations with respect to the word "vest" being present in some legislations (the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952) and absent in others (the 13 Insurance Act, 1939, the Cooperative Societies Act, 1912). Looking at the dissimilarities. and the fact that uniform definition is not available relating to the rights of "nominee" and/or whether such "nomination" bestows absolute ownership over nominees, it is only appropriate that the terms are considered as ordinarily understood by a reasonable person making nominations, with respect to their movable or immovable properties. A reasonable individual arranging for the disposition of his property is expected to undertake any such nomination, bearing in mind the interpretation on the effect of nomination, as given by courts consistently, for a number of years. The concept of nomination if interpreted by departing from the well-established manner would, in our view, cause major ramifications and create significant impact on disposition of properties left behind by deceased nominators. 13. The law in this respect is well established according to Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the property of a women would be devolved to the near relatives the said Lallaram being the father-in-law of the deceased Ranjana Devi Pradhan has rightly been issued succession certificate by the appellate Court which cannot be said to be faulted with. 14 14. Before both the Courts below this issue has not been disputed that Lallaram is not the father-in-law of the deceased Ranjana Devi Pradhan. 15. Time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that nomination itself could not entitled any person to get succession certificate as such the order is well merited which is not required to be interfered with. 16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 17. From the perusal of the record, it seems that Lallaram is the father-in-law of the deceased Ranjana Devi Pradhan. Deceased Ranjana Devi Pradhan was working as Women Health Worker and in her account amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- has been deposited along with interest as such the property would be devolved upon the near relatives as per Section 15 (1) (b) of the Act i.e. upon the airs of husband as such the appellate Court has rightly considered this aspect and has held that Lallaram being the father-in-law of the deceased has rightly been issued succession certificate to get an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- along with interest. 18. In the revisional jurisdiction, the revisional Court has to see whether any illegality/ perversity has been committed by the Court or not? 19. In the present matter, this Court of the opinion is that no illegality/perversity has been committed by the appellate Court 15 while issuing succession certificate in favour of Lallaram as such the order cannot be interfered with. 20. The appellate Court has rightly considered the evidence of the parties along with the documents which is not required to be interefered with in revisional jurisdiction as such no illegality/perversity has been committed. 21. The order passed by the appellate Court is well maintained and as such the revision filed by the applicant is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 15.9.2025 19.11.2025 19.11.2025 Raghu Jat 16 Head Note Nomination by the employee itself would not give right to claim succession certificate.