Nomination Does Not Override Legal Heirs' Rights To Deceased’s Estate: Karnataka High Court
Appellant challenged the trial court’s decision to reject her application for inclusion in a suit filed by the legal heirs of the deceased.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that a nomination made by a deceased person during their lifetime does not strip the title to their estate after death, regardless of the nominee. The Court stated that after a person’s death, the estate or assets devolve to the legal heirs as per the relevant inheritance laws, rather than to the nominee.
Appellant challenged the trial court’s decision to reject her application for inclusion in a suit filed by the legal heirs of the deceased. The legal heirs were seeking the issuance of a succession certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act.
A Bench of Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar said, “Just because the deceased has made the appellant as nominee, that does not defeat the law of succession, when other legal heirs are having a right to claim estate of the deceased.”
Advocate Avinash Banakar appeared for the Appellant.
She argued that Kantesh had purchased an insurance policy during his lifetime, naming her as the nominee.
However, the Court added, “But, just because a nominee is made it does not create any disentitlement by other legal heirs as per their right vested under the law of succession.”
The Court clarified that the purpose of a nomination is to enable the insurance company or bank to pay the nominated individual, but this does not exclude the legal heirs from claiming their rightful share of the deceased's estate.
Citing the Supreme Court ruling in Smt. Sarabati Devi and Another v. Smt. Usha Devi (1984), the Court emphasized that a nomination does not confer exclusive rights to the nominee, particularly when other legal heirs have a valid claim to the deceased's assets.
Therefore, the High Court concluded that her appeal lacked merit and dismissed it, affirming that the legal heirs were entitled to the estate as per the law of succession.
Cause Title: Annapurna v. Kavita & Ors., [2025:KHC-D:1170]
