By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Accept
ApniLawApniLawApniLaw
  • Home
  • Law Forum
  • Find Lawyers
  • Legal Services
  • Legal News
  • Legal Jobs
  • Legal Articles
    • Documentation
    • Marriage and Divorce
    • Land Dispute & Will
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Supreme Court
    • High Court
  • Bare Acts
    • BNSS
    • BNS
    • BSA
    • CrPC
    • DPDP
    • Hindu Marriage Act
    • IPC
    • POCSO
Reading: Nomination Does Not Override Legal Heirs’ Rights: Karnataka HC
Share
Notification Show More
Font ResizerAa
ApniLawApniLaw
Font ResizerAa
  • Supreme Court
  • High Court
  • Acts
  • Documentation
  • BNSS
  • Home
  • Law Forum
  • Find Lawyers
  • Legal Services
  • Legal News
  • Legal Jobs
  • Legal Articles
    • Documentation
    • Marriage and Divorce
    • Land Dispute & Will
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Supreme Court
    • High Court
  • Bare Acts
    • BNSS
    • BNS
    • BSA
    • CrPC
    • DPDP
    • Hindu Marriage Act
    • IPC
    • POCSO
Have an existing account? Sign In
Follow US
  • Advertise
© 2022 Foxiz News Network. Ruby Design Company. All Rights Reserved.
ApniLaw > Blog > High Court > Karnataka High Court > Nomination Does Not Override Legal Heirs’ Rights: Karnataka HC
CivilHigh CourtKarnataka High CourtNews

Nomination Does Not Override Legal Heirs’ Rights: Karnataka HC

Amna Kabeer
Last updated: February 23, 2025 7:54 pm
Amna Kabeer
5 months ago
Share
High Court of Karnataka
High Court of Karnataka
SHARE

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has ruled that a nomination made during a deceased person’s lifetime does not override the rights of legal heirs. The court clarified that after a person’s death, their estate is inherited by legal heirs. This is under the applicable law of succession, regardless of any nominee.
Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar made this observation while dismissing an appeal by Annapurna. She had challenged a trial court order rejecting her plea to be impleaded in a suit. The suit was filed by the legal heirs of Kantesh Khandagale. The heirs had sought a succession certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act.

Contents
Nomination Does Not Confer OwnershipCourt’s ObservationsHigh Court Ruling


Nomination Does Not Confer Ownership


The appellant argued that Kantesh Khandagale had purchased an insurance policy during his lifetime and named her as the nominee. She contended that, as the nominee, she was legally entitled to receive the policy amount, not the legal heirs.
Citing Sections 39(7) and 39(8) of the Insurance Act, 1938. Annapurna maintained that since she was the only nominee. She alone was entitled to the insurance amount. She further claimed that granting a succession certificate to the legal heirs would make it difficult for her to receive the policy payout.


Court’s Observations


The court noted that being a nominee does not override the rights of legal heirs under succession law. It stated, “Just because the deceased made the appellant a nominee, it does not defeat the law of succession when other legal heirs have a rightful claim to the estate.”
It clarified that the purpose of nomination is to facilitate the initial payout process by financial institutions. However, nomination does not exclude legal heirs from claiming their rightful inheritance.


High Court Ruling


Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Smt. Sarabati Devi and Another v. Smt. Usha Devi (1984), the High Court reaffirmed that a nominee does not have absolute ownership over an insurance policy’s proceeds. Instead, the nominee merely acts as a trustee for the legal heirs.
Concluding that Annapurna’s claim had no legal merit, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the legal heirs’ right to claim the estate, including the insurance amount.
This ruling reinforces that legal heirs retain their rights to a deceased person’s assets, regardless of any nomination, ensuring adherence to the law of succession.

You Might Also Like

Person Convicted Under Both POCSO And IPC Face Higher Punishment: SC

Original Breathalyzer Printout Required for Drunken Driving Cases: Kerala HC

Live-in Relationships Go Against “Settled Law in Indian Middle Class Society.”, Allahabad HC

Re-Testing Of Drugs in NDPS Cases Allowed Only in Rare Situations: Rajasthan HC

Supreme Court Grants Bail to Humayun Merchant In Money Laundering Case

TAGGED:Karnataka High courtLand DisputesLegal HeirsNominated PersonTransfer of Property
Share This Article
Facebook Email Print
Previous Article Section 200 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) - Punishment For Non-Treatment Of Victim Section 200 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) – Punishment For Non-Treatment Of Victim.
Next Article Supreme Court of India Dowry Demand Not Necessary To Prove Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC: Supreme Court
Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Follow US

Find US on Social Medias
FacebookLike
XFollow
InstagramFollow
YoutubeSubscribe

Weekly Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter to get our newest articles instantly!
Popular News
High Court of Karnataka
CriminalHigh CourtKarnataka High CourtNews

Statements Under Section 161 And 164 CrPC Only Considered In Rare Cases: Karnataka High Court

Amna Kabeer
By Amna Kabeer
6 months ago
Husband’s Father Not Automatically Liable For Widow’s Maintenance Under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act: Patna HC
No Maintenance for Educated Wife Choosing Unemployment: Delhi HC
Father-in-law Has The Right To Evict His Son-in-law From His Property: Madhya Pradesh HC
Grabbing Breasts Of Minor And Dragging Not Attempt To Rape: SC Takes Cognizance of HC Order
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -
Ad imageAd image

Your one-stop destination for legal news, articles, queries, and a directory of lawyers in India – all under one roof at ApniLaw.

Stay Updated

  • BNSS
  • News
  • Documentation
  • Acts
  • Supreme Court
  • High Court

Information

  • ApniLaw Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service

Advertise

  • Advertise with us
  • Newsletters
  • Deal

Find Us on Socials

ApniLawApniLaw
Follow US
© ApniLaw 2025. All Rights Reserved.
bg-n
Join Us!
Subscribe to our newsletter and never miss our latest news, podcasts etc..
Zero spam, Unsubscribe at any time.

More Interesting News

Cheque Bounce - Negotiable Instruments Act 1881

Landmark Supreme Court Judgements In Cheque Bounce Cases (Case Overview)

Cheque Bounce - Negotiable Instruments Act 1881

Compounding Of Cheque Bounce Offence: Section 147 of the Negotiable Instrument Act

login
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address
Password

Lost your password?