SHEELA DEVI Vs. SHIKHA UPADHYAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises out of the order passed by the learned District Judge, Bharatpur. On an application dtd. 10/8/2016 on an application under Sec. 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1985 whereby he has held that the gratuity amount liable to be released on account of death of Sushil Kumar Sharma would be divided as per the Succession Act amongst the four successor namely mother, wife and two daughters equally.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-mother submits that as her deceased son had only nominated her for receiving the gratuity amount, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bharatpur has thus erred in deciding the application by dividing the gratuity amount amongst the four inheritors/successors on the basis of Succession Act. Learned counsel submits that the provisions of Succession Act would have no application where there is already a nominee. He submits that nomination would amount to a will of the concerned person who nominates an individual to be paid his gratuity amount after his death. No other persons can have a claim thereto and the provisions of Sec. 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1985 would have no application.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the wife and the two daughters submit that so far as the provision is concerned she has rightly been given 1/4th share of the gratuity and the wife and the two daughters cannot be ousted from their claim to receive part of the gratuity amount. Learned counsel further submits that so far as the provisions of Succession Act are concerned, they would have an application in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarbati Devi and Anr. Vs. Usha Devi reported in AIR 1984 SC 346 and the subsequent judgment in the case of Vishin N. Khanchandani and Anr. Vs. Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani and Anr. reported in (2000) 6 SCC 724 and again followed in the case of Ram Chander Talwar and Anr. Vs. Devender Kumar Talwar and Ors. reported in (2010) 10 SCC 671.