9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 1124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... them? Whether it was proper for the High Court to rely upon a forged and fabricated Will which was not even signed by Niharbala? Whether it was proper for the High Court to accept the alleged Will on record in its revisional Jurisdiction, in absence of any application to that effect? Whether the High Court was entitled to take Will on record without giving fresh opportunity to lead evidence on it? Whether the High Court was right in interpreting and relying upon section 3(2) of Provident Fund Act, 1925? - CIVIL APPEAL NO.809 OF 2002 - - - Dated:- 20-8-2009 - BHANDARI, DALVEER CHANDAND SHARMA, MUKUNDAKAM, JJ. JUDGEMENT Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.9.2000 passed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d consequently she was, therefore, equally entitled to succeed to the property along with her mother-in-law Niharbala Sengupta. 6. The Trial Court granted succession certificate to the appellant and the mother of the deceased in respect of total amount of life insurance, gratuity, public provident fund and general provident fund due to Shyamal Sengupta. The Trial Court held that both of them shall be entitled to half share in the aforesaid amounts due to Shyamal Sengupta from different heads. As to rest of the items mentioned in paragraph 6 of the application, the Trial Court held that the appellant alone was entitled to a succession certificate. 7. In an appeal jointly filed by the mother of the deceased Niharbala Sengupta and brothe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asis of an alleged Will executed by her prior to her death in favour of Mirdul Sengupta. The Will expressly dealt with the amount to which she was entitled to receive as a consequence of grant of a succession certificate. 10. Pushpal Sengupta did not challenge the Will by which he was affected. Therefore, the position that emerged was that the court must presume for the purpose of this revision that the Will is validly executed in favour of Mirdul Sengupta. 11. In the impugned judgment, the High Court relied on the judgment of Sarbati Devi (supra) and observed that the nomination did not confer any beneficial interest on the nominee. The High Court passed the following order: (i) The amount of General Provident Fund deposited in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provident fund can be claimed by the heirs of the member of the provident fund in accordance with the law of succession governing them? IV. Whether it was proper for the High Court to rely upon a forged and fabricated Will which was not even signed by Niharbala? V. Whether it was proper for the High Court to accept the alleged Will on record in its revisional Jurisdiction, in absence of any application to that effect? VI. Whether the High Court was entitled to take Will on record without giving fresh opportunity to lead evidence on it? VII. Whether the High Court was right in interpreting and relying upon section 3(2) of Provident Fund Act, 1925? 13. The appellant submitted that according to the settled legal position crysta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ministration Others (1998) VII AD (Delhi) 639. This case related to the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act. The High Court while following Sarbati Devi case (supra) held that it is well settled that mere nomination made in favour of a particular person does not have the effect of conferring on the nominee any beneficial interest in property after the death of the person concerned. The nomination indicates the hand which is authorized to receive the amount or manage the property. The property or the amount, as the case may be, can be claimed by the heirs of the deceased, in accordance with the law of succession, governing them. 17. The controversy involved in the instant case is no longer res integra. The nominee is entitled to receive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
