LexSHIPRA SENGUPTA versus MRIDUL SENGUPTA & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 407 SHIPRA SENGUPTA A v. MRIDUL SENGUPTA & OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 809 of 2002) AUGUST 20, 2009 B [DALVEER BHANDARI AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] ...... Provident Fund Act, 1925 - s.3(2) - Interpretation of - Provident fund - Nominee's interest in the amount after the c death of the person concerned - Held: Nomination does not confer any beneficial interest on the nominee - Amount in any head can be received by nominee, but amount can be claimed by heirs of deceased under the law of succession • governing them - On facts, deceased died leaving behind his D _.,. ·mother and widow as his only heirs and legal representatives ... - Widow of deceased and his mother entitled to half share each of the amount of general provident fund and mother the other half - On death of mother, the surviving son to get the share - Hindu Suc~ession Act, 1956. E SS joined bank service and made his mother a nominee. He was unmarried at that time. He died A issueless leaving behind appellant-widow, mother and -' brothers PS and MS. Appellant claimed the share of F insurance, gratuity, public provident fund, etc. Trial court granted succession certificate to the appellant and the mother in respect of the amount of insurance, gratuity, public provident fund and general provident fund. Regarding the remaining items, the trial court granted succession certificate to the appellant. In appeal, the G District judge held that in respect of the remaining items -. .y- the mother was equally entitled to the half share along ... with the appellant. Aggrieved, mother and her son PS filed a revision. During pendency, the mother died and 407 H ,,, 408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A MS was substituted on basis of the Will executed by her in favour of MS as regard the amount which she was to )._ receive on grant of succession certificate. High Court ~ held that MS would be entitled to the entire amount of General Provident fund deposited in the name of SS; and B as regard the remaining items, after the death of the mother, both MS and appellant would get half share each. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court ~ c HELD: 1.1. Nomination does not confer any beneficial interest on the nominee. The amount in any head can be received by the nominee, but the amount can be claimed by the heirs of the deceased in accordance with law of succession governing them. [Para 19] [414- 0 H; 415-A] 1.2. In the instant case, the d~~ceased died leaving ~ ~ behind his mother and widow as his only heirs and legal representatives entitled to succeed. Therefore, on the day ~ when the right of succession opened, the appellant- l· E widow became entitled to one half .of the amount of the general provident fund, the other half going to the mother and on her death, the other surviving son getting the same. The amounts so received are to be distributed ~ F according to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The State ~ Bank of India is directed to release half of the amount of ' general provident fund to the appellant along with ,, interest. [Paras 18 and 19] [414-F-G; 415-B] • i Smt. Sarbati Devi & Anr. vs. Smt. Usha Devi (1984) 1 G SCC 424; Om Wati vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, New Delhi & Ors. 1988 Lab l.C. 500; Vishin n. Khanchandani & Anr v. Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani & Another (2000) -y- 6 SCC 724; Ashok Chand Aggarwala v. Delhi Administration .; and Ors. (1998) VII AD (Delhi) 639, referred to. H ~ SHIPRA SENGUPTA v. MRIDUL SENGUPTA & ORS. 40~ Case Law Reference: A (1984) 1 sec 424 Referred to Para 8 1988 Lab l.C. 500 Referred to Para 8 c2000) 6 sec 124 Referred to Para 15 B (1998) VII AD (Delhi) 639 Referred to. Para 16 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 809 of 2002. From the Judgment & Order dated 12.09.2000 of the High C Court of Judicature at Jabalpur (M.P.) in Misc. Civil Case No.1209 of 1998. ~ Ashwani Kumar, Tara Chandra Sharma, Arti Singh (for -i. Sanjay Kapur) for the appearing parties. D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.9.2000 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Miscellaneous Civil E Case No. 1·209 of 1998. ,.. 4 2. The appellant is the wife of Late Shri Shyamal Sengupta who was a Head Clerk in the State Bank of India, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. He was initially a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.