Wife or nominee, who gets the property ?


That there are no general laws on nomination. 

That nomination  is a temporary arrangement.

That the nominees are appointed, to ensure that the subject matter of the nomination is protected, until the legal heirs or legal representatives of the deceased take appropriate steps,

That the right of the nominee are determined  in accordance with the laws governing the subject matter of nomination.

That at  no point had the supreme court decided that the rights of the nominees will prevail over that of the successors. 

That even Indrani Wahi Case, the apex court had observed that it would be open for legal heirs of the deceased , to pursue their case of succession or inheritance. They will be entitled to claim the title on the basis of inheritance

That any other interpretation of nomination would render the succession to be meaningless.

Krishna Advocate 9447963440

 

 

 
Reply   
 
Consultant & Legal Analyst

Mr. Ramesh Singh,

Please don't mind, if I say that your question is not the answer to my observation. As a consultant, you were required to recheck the provisions of your own quoted section 22 to answer my observation/ question.

In fact, there is no need for you to take food supplements. The only requirements for you was to understand that a querist come here with the belief that he would get correct guidance, as based on the knowledge of the experts. There was a further need for you to anlayse the law appropriately before replying the query after understanding the crux of the problem.

The irony is, once due to ineffective presentation of deficiency of service on the part of lawyer towards some of his client, if a court declared something that does not form part of any statute, people often believe that the related judgment has becomes the law of the land, while case laws get created and quashed also by one and other courts of law depending upon the nature, characteristics and the circumstances of the individual cases. All judgments cannot equally be applied on all types of cases unless the nature, characteristics and the circumstances are quite similar to the quoted case.

I hope, as a consultant, before providing service to any client or even querist, you have to understand the very basic facts pertaining to the related law.

So far nobody has come forward to provide any statutory provision for treating a nominee, as a trustee, as asked by Mr. Jigyasu. If Mr. Jigyasu, a declared learner, has posed a question on some legal point, the experts were required to make a review of their replies as based on their knowledge and would have come forward with the exact legal clarifications after checking the relevant statutes.

n fact, that should not have been taken as a question of prestige or ego, as to why their opinion has not been taken as correct, but should have taken the opportunity to enhance their knowledge by having a relook to the related legal provisions.

.

 
Reply   
 


Consultant & Legal Analyst

Originally posted by : subramanyam
The Supreme Court, in the case of Sarbati Devi, which was decided in 1983, held that the nominee is a trustee of the property and is liable to hand it over to the legal heirs. This applies to deposits in bank accounts also

 

You seemingly a layman, I admire your efforts to understand law. But, as I stated in my earlier post, "case laws get created and quashed also by one and other courts of law depending upon the nature, characteristics and the circumstances of the individual cases. All judgments cannot equally be applied on all types of cases unless the nature, characteristics and the circumstances are quite similar to the quoted case.

Moreover, the case quoted by you pertains to some insurance claim, not an immovable property. Insurance law has nothing to do with the transfer of property laws.
 
Not only that your quoted case of 1983 has now become defunct and ineffective on account of the newly introduced provision on nomination under the Insurance Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015. Through that provision, even the Government of India recognized the right of a nominee, while treating a nominee as the beneficiary of the policy of the deceased policy holder.
 
Hope you would prefer to enhance your knowledge by going through the revised legal provisions about nomination with respect to the insurance claims.
 
 
Reply   
 
Consultant & Legal Analyst

Originally posted by : Krishna. Advocate
That there are no general laws on nomination. 

That nomination  is a temporary arrangement.

That the nominees are appointed, to ensure that the subject matter of the nomination is protected, until the legal heirs or legal representatives of the deceased take appropriate steps,

That the right of the nominee are determined  in accordance with the laws governing the subject matter of nomination.

That at  no point had the supreme court decided that the rights of the nominees will prevail over that of the successors. 

That even Indrani Wahi Case, the apex court had observed that it would be open for legal heirs of the deceased , to pursue their case of succession or inheritance. They will be entitled to claim the title on the basis of inheritance

That any other interpretation of nomination would render the succession to be meaningless.

Krishna Advocate 9447963440
 

 

Dear Shri Krishna Advocate,

if you don't mind, you may like to feel that your own statement, "That there are no general laws on nomination" makes it very clear that none of statute passed by the Parliament of India has not till now declared a nominee to be merely a trustee of the deceased or his heirs. On other parts of your reply, my point by point  observations are as follows, which may probably help you in having a relook on the issue of nominations:

YOUR POINT: That nomination  is a temporary arrangement.

MY VIEWS: No such law speaks about age old existing nomination, as a temporary arrangement. Assumptions has no relevance in law.

YOUR POINT: That the nominees are appointed, to ensure that the subject matter of the nomination is protected, until the legal heirs or legal representatives of the deceased take appropriate steps,

MY VIEWS: No such law speaks about age old existing nomination, as a temporary arrangement. Assumptions has no relevance in law.

YOUR POINT: That the right of the nominee are determined  in accordance with the laws governing the subject matter of nomination.

MY VIEWS: Mr. Jigyasu asked only about any such law governing the right of a nominee, where you termed a nominee as a trustee.

YOUR POINT: That at  no point had the supreme court decided that the rights of the nominees will prevail over that of the successors. 

MY VIEWS: Not a question of decision of Supreme Court, but the question of any Stature, if that declared a nominee as a trustee. Even the the Supreme Court decision of 1983 on the insurance claim case of the year 1983 has become invalid now in the wake of the latest amendment of Insurance laws of 2015, as I pointed in my earlier post.

YOUR POINT: That even Indrani Wahi Case, the apex court had observed that it would be open for legal heirs of the deceased , to pursue their case of succession or inheritance. They will be entitled to claim the title on the basis of inheritance.

MY VIEWS: Even in your own referred case of Indrani Wahi, the Supreme Court, itself, delivered its judgment that “transfer of share or interest, based on a nomination under Section 79 in favour of the nominee, is with reference to the concerned Cooperative Society, and is binding on the said society. The Cooperative Society has no option whatsoever, except to transfer the membership in the name of the nominee, in consonance with Sections 79 and 80 of the 1983 Act (read with Rules 127 and 128 of the 1987 Rules). That, would have no relevance to the issue of title between the inheritors or successors to the property of the deceased.”...

YOUR POINT: That any other interpretation of nomination would render the succession to be meaningless.

MY VIEWS: In view of the facts narrated above through my observations, your own interpretation gets a big question mark!

 

 
Reply   
 
Consultant

I am really happy that my query in has been evaluated adequatedly in order to evoke such an exemplary response, particularly from Mr. Dhingra. I really feel emencely benefited by the knowledge imparted through his posts.

I bow my head for slaute to Mr. Dhingra for such a perfect knowledge on the issues!

 

 
Reply   
 
Consultant

Originally posted by : Ramesh Singh
I guess I am facing mental deficiency or lack of nutrition in my dietary schedule & shall I take food supplement (i.e. Vitamin, minerals, carbohydrates, protein & ginseng etc.) to balance my diet? Am I right Mr. Dhingra sir ???

 

@Ramesh Singh ji

I am sorry, if you have got guilty feeling or offended on account of my question, which evoked debate on legal aspects of nomination vs. trustee.

.

 
Reply   
 

To Mr:Dhingara

Rights of the nominees will prevail over that of the successors. ?
Except 1 or 2 ,My points are  from Various judgments of supreme court and various high courts in similar cases. I will send you the Case details.  

Case No:1

A division bench of the Bombay High Court - The bench of Justices AS Oka and AA Sayed 

A division bench of the Bombay High Court has held that the right of succession overrides the rights of a nominee. The bench of Justices AS Oka and AA Sayed have held that the rights of the successors prevail over that of the nominee of a holder of shares or securities appointed under Section 109A of Companies Act, 1953.before the division bench after the Chief Justice passed an administrative order directing the same.

Defendants in the suit claimed that they were nominees of the deceased in respect of certain investments in mutual funds. This
they claimed was “exclusively vested in them.”

Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Indrani Wahi v. Registrar of Co-op Societies and Others the bench observed that “The conclusion drawn by the Apex Court was that a Cooperative Society is bound by the nomination made by the member. In case of such nomination, the Society has no option except to transfer the shares in the name of the nominee after the death of the member. However, those who are claiming inheritance will be entitled to pursue their remedies and claim title in the shares on the basis of inheritance.
 

Thus, the conclusion drawn by the Apex Court was not that the nomination binds the egal representatives of the deceased shareholder or a member of the Society or that itoverrides the law of succession.”

In conclusion the bench observed- “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 share holder or a deposit holder or an insurance policy holder or a member of a Cooperative Society makes a 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.”

Krishna Advocate 9447963440

 

 

 
Reply   
 

TO 

Mr: Dhinkara

A nominee is bound to distribute the benefits among the legal heirs.

Refer

rder of  Madras Hight  Court in Felix Vs. Jemi and others reported in 2002 (2) TNLJ 83 and Sarbati Devi Vs. Usha Devi reported in AIR 1984 SC 346.

Advocate Krishna 9447963440

 
Reply   
 
Consultant & Legal Analyst

Originally posted by : Krishna. Advocate
To Mr:Dhingara

Rights of the nominees will prevail over that of the successors. ?
Except 1 or 2 ,My points are  from Various judgments of supreme court and various high courts in similar cases. I will send you the Case details.  

Case No:1

A division bench of the Bombay High Court - The bench of Justices AS Oka and AA Sayed 

A division bench of the Bombay High Court has held that the right of succession overrides the rights of a nominee. The bench of Justices AS Oka and AA Sayed have held that the rights of the successors prevail over that of the nominee of a holder of shares or securities appointed under Section 109A of Companies Act, 1953.before the division bench after the Chief Justice passed an administrative order directing the same.

Defendants in the suit claimed that they were nominees of the deceased in respect of certain investments in mutual funds. This
they claimed was “exclusively vested in them.”

Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Indrani Wahi v. Registrar of Co-op Societies and Others the bench observed that “The conclusion drawn by the Apex Court was that a Cooperative Society is bound by the nomination made by the member. In case of such nomination, the Society has no option except to transfer the shares in the name of the nominee after the death of the member. However, those who are claiming inheritance will be entitled to pursue their remedies and claim title in the shares on the basis of inheritance.
 

Thus, the conclusion drawn by the Apex Court was not that the nomination binds the egal representatives of the deceased shareholder or a member of the Society or that itoverrides the law of succession.”

In conclusion the bench observed- “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 share holder or a deposit holder or an insurance policy holder or a member of a Cooperative Society makes a 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.”

Krishna Advocate 9447963440
 

 

@Mr. Krishna Advocate,

Probably in a fit of rage against me due to my posts, you have pronounced even my name wrongly in both of your present posts, as "Dhingara" and "Dhinkara" instead of "DHINGRA."

Anyway, bout your clarification, you seem to depend mostly on observations rather than judgments of the courts. I hope you may be well aware that THERE IS A MARKED DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN OBSERVATION AND A DECISION or JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. Probably you forget that cvases of housing society is not dealt with under the Companies Act, 1953. Even if you want to discuss about the quoted Section 109A of the Companies Act, 1953, that applies to the shares and debentures of the companies under the Company Laws. Moreover, even the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 109A very clearly specifies that otherwise than a person appointed by testamentary/will, "where a nomination made in the prescribed manner purports to confer on any person the right to vest the shares in, or debentures of, the company, the nominee shall, on the death of the shareholder or holder of debentures of, the company or, as the case may be, on the death of the joint-holders become ENTITLED TO ALL RIGHTS IN THE SHARES OR DEBENTURES of the company or, as the case may be, all the joint-holders, in relation to such shares in, or debentures of the company to the exclusion of all other persons."

You should not have forgetten that in the present case no will exists.

SO, EVEN YOUR OWN REFERRED COMPANIES ACT DOES NOT DENY THE RIGHTS OF A NOMINATION EVEN FOR SHARES AND DEBENTURES OF THE COMPANIES, WHAT TO SAY OF A SOCIETY, WHICH IS QUITE PETTY ENTITY AS COMPARED TO THE REGISTERED COMPANY UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT.

About case laws, there are plenty of such jusgements, which scuttle down each other judgments. So, which to apply and which not to apply always remains a mystery even for the lawyers. The irony is that in the absence of any statute, the judgment is prnounced in favour the litigant, whosoever is able to prevail through his lawyer due to some weakness of the opponent lawyer with lesser knowledge.

Even in your own post, you have stated that the HC Bombay has taken cognizance of High Court ruling stating that "Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Indrani Wahi v. Registrar of Co-op Societies and Others the bench observed that “The conclusion drawn by the Apex Court was that a Cooperative Society is bound by the nomination made by the member. In case of such nomination, the Society has no option except to transfer the shares in the name of the nominee after the death of the member." YOU HAVE HAVE NOT STATED ANYWHERE THAT THE HC BOMBAY HAS ANNULED THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT.  So far as what you quoted, "However, those who are claiming inheritance will be entitled to pursue their remedies and claim title in the shares on the basis of inheritance," that was NOT A CLEAR JUDGMENT in their favour, RATHER a FACILITATOR enabling the legal heirs to pursue further and prove genuineness of their claims as against the nominee's right. So, in no way that decision treats a nominee as merely a trustee.
 
 
 
Reply   
 

LEAVE A REPLY


    

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



 

  Search Forum








×

Menu

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query
Muslim Personal Law     |    x