Dr. Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THE present Misc. Appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 has been filed by the appellants, who were the applicants before the learned Trial Court in Civil Civil Misc. Suit No. 17/2013 "Nirmala Singh & Anr. v. Jai Singh & Ors.", against the impugned order dated 21.05.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jaitaran, District Pali by which order, the learned Trial Court has dismissed the application of the appellants -applicants filed under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act seeking issuance of succession certificate in respect of their share in the Insurance Policy taken by the deceased Budhkaran Singh, husband of the applicant No. 1 (Smt. Nirmala Singh) and father of the applicant No. 2 (Asutosh) though the deceased had nominated his mother namely, Sugan Kanwar, in the said Insurance Policy.
(2.) THE relevant portion of the findings of the learned Trial Court in the impugned order dated 21.05.2015 are quoted herein below for ready reference: - - The learned counsel Mr. Sandeep Sarupariya appearing for the appellants -applicants relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shipra Sengupta v. Mridul Sengupta & Ors. reported in : 2009 (4) CCC 077 (S.C.) and submitted that in the present matter, the nominee, i.e., the mother of the deceased Budhkaran Singh Charan has only a right to receive the amount of the Insurance Policy and has no beneficial interest in the amount of Insurance Policy and, therefore, the learned Trial Court has erred in rejecting the application of the appellants -applicants filed under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act and could not have held and decided that the appellants, the wife (Smt. Nirmala Singh) and the son (Asutosh) of the deceased Budhkaran Singh Charan had no right or share in the receipts of the maturity value of the Insurance Policy of which, the deceased nominated his mother Sugan Kanwar. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the impugned order dated 21.05.2015 deserves to be modified to the extent it observed that except the nominee, no other person will have any claim or right. The learned counsel submitted that in the circumstances of the case, the application filed by the appellants under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act ought to have been allowed.
(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsels Mr. Rakesh Arora and Mr. D.K. Joshi appearing for the respondents -non -applicants supported the impugned order dated 21.05.2015 and submitted that the respondent No. 2, i.e., the mother of the deceased namely, Sugan Kanwar, has rightly been allowed to receive the money of the Insurance Policy in view of the nomination in her favour by the deceased Budhkaran Singh Charan but the same does not have any adverse affect on the rights of the appellants, as legal heirs of the deceased Budhkaran Singh Charan and have their share in the said maturity value of the Insurance Policy. The learned counsels submitted that no interference is called for in the impugned order dated 21.05.2015 and the present Misc. Appeal deserves to be dismissed being devoid of any merit.;