PLJ 2010 Lahore
168
[Rawalpindi Bench Rawalpindi]
Present: Asad Munir, J.
Mst. PERVEEN AKHTAR--Petitioner
versus
MUHAMMAD ADNAN and others--Respondents
W.P. No. 280 of 2009, decided on 28.10.2009.
Insurance Act, 1938--
----Ss. 38 & 39--Insurance policy is a more trustee
of the amount-Bound to distribute among legal heirs--Nominee in an insurance
policy is a mere trustee who is bound to distribute the insurance monies among
the legal heirs. [P. 171] A
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)--
----S. 115--Civil revision--Being the nominee in
insurance policies--Question of distribution of insurance money--Entitle of the
nominee to benevolent fund under Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group
Insurance Act, 1964--Petitioners were legal heirs of the deceased while
respondents were the children of the deceased out of his previous wife who had
been divorced before his death--Suit for declaration against co-respondents who
were responsible for issuance of the life insurance policies--Petitioner being
a nominee in the insurance policies, had received from them the insurance
amount--Challenged through writ petition that petitioner being nominee in the
Insurance Policies, was the sole beneficiary and could keep the insurance
monies to exclusion of other heirs--Question of--Question of entitlement of a
nominee under group insurance was not addressed as it was not part of the
subject matter of the appeal--Question of distribution of insurance money among
the legal heirs which include not just the petitioner as a nominee--Held:
Petitioner had no right to deny the other heirs from receiving their shares as
per their entitlement--Plea of the petitioner that insurance money received had
been utilized for re-payment of debts of the deceased due in respect of
remaining installments for plot which he had purchased, does not appear to be
supported by record--Further held: Ground of suit not being properly framed
either the civil judge has inherent powers to take notice of subsequent events
and do justice to save the parties from unnecessary litigation--No interference
is called for by High Court in its revisional jurisdiction--Revision was
dismissed. [P. 171] B & C
Raja Israr Ahmad Abbasi, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ch. Riaz Ahmad, Advocate for Respondents No. 1 and 2.
Mr. Maqsood Hassan, Advocate for Respondents No. 3 to 5.
Date of hearing: 28.10.2009.
Order
This Civil Revision filed by Mat. Parveen Akhtar, calls
in question the Judgment and decree dated 19.5.2009 passed by the learned Addl:
District Judge, Jhelum, whereby the appeal filed by Respondents No. 1 and 2 has
been accepted and the judgment and decree dated 28.1.2008 passed by learned
Civil Judge, Jhelum, has been set aside.
2. The brief facts
forming the back-ground of this petition are that the petitioner alongwith her
two minor sons namely, Aman and Faizan, as well as Respondents No. 1 and 2 are
the legal heirs of late Khurshid Ahmad who died on 16.6.2001. Petitioner is the
widow of late Khurshid Ahmad while Respondents No. 1 and 2 are the children of
late Khurshid Ahmad out of his marriage with Mst. Shafqat Bibi who was divorced
by Khurshid Ahmad before his death. During his life time, late Khurshid Ahmad
insured his life through two Insurance policies one issued by Eastern Federal
Life Insurance and the other by Postal Life Insurance. The said policies became
payable on the death of late Khurshid Ahmad and a sum of Rs. 10,72,500/- became due on account of the said policies. On
27.7.2001, Respondents No. 1 and 2 through their mother filed a suit for
declaration and permanent injunction against Respondents No. 3 to 5 who were
responsible for the issuance of the aforesaid life Insurance Policies. The
Respondents No. 3 to 5 filed their written statement on 28.1.2003 wherein it
was stated that the petitioner, being a nominee in the said insurance policies,
had received from them the insurance amount to the tune of Rs. 10,72,500/-. The
learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 28.1.2008 dismissed the
suit of Respondents No. 1 and 2 whereupon an appeal was preferred which was
allowed by the learned Addl: District Judge, Jhelum vide his judgment and
decree dated 19.5.2009. In terms of the judgment and decree dated 19.5.2009,
the suit was decreed in favour of Respondents No. 1 and 2 to the extent that
the Respondents No. 1 and 2 were declared to be entitled to recover 3/8th share
from the amounts of the insurance policies from the petitioner. Now through
this writ petition the petitioners have assailed the judgment and decree dated
19.5.2009 by contending that Petitioner No. 1 being the nominee in the
insurance policies, was the sole beneficiary and could
keep the insurance monies to the exclusion of other heirs. Reliance has been
placed on PLD 1991 S.C 731 wherein the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that amounts due on account of benevolent fund and group
insurance are not part of the estate as these assets are not acquired by the
deceased during his life-time. It is also contended that the impugned judgment
and decree does not take into account the fact that some debts out of the
insurance money were paid on behalf of the deceased on account of installments
payable in respect of some plot in the name of the deceased. Thirdly, it has
been contended that recovery of money against the petitioners could not have
been ordered as the suit of Respondents No. 1 and 2, as framed, did not seek
such relief.
3. After going
through the record as well as the respective contentions of the learned counsel
for the parties, it appears that the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is misconceived as the nominee under an insurance policy is a mere
trustee of the amount received and cannot appropriate the same to his use or
benefit but is bound to distribute the amount of insurance policy among the
legal heirs as per their entitlement. There can be no debate on this point as
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mst. Omat-ul-Habib etc. vs. Mst. Musarrat Parveen
(PLD 1974 S.C 185) has laid down as under:--
"the nomination merely
confers a right to collect the money or to receive the money. It does not
operate either as a gift or as a will and, therefore, cannot deprive the other
heirs of the nominator who may be entitled thereto under the law of succession
applicable to the deceased. The nominees thus collect as a trustee for the
benefit of all persons entitled to inherit from the deceased employee".
The ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been followed
in M/s. Latif Ibrahim Jamal vs. Controller of Estate Duty (1989 P.T.D 1027) and
Mrs. Shaista Younas Khan etc. vs. Mrs. Asia Khatoon etc. (1995 PLD 560) wherein
while interpreting Sections 38 and 39 of the Insurance Act 1938, it was held
that nominee in an insurance policy is a mere trustee who is bound to
distribute the insurance monies among the legal heirs.
4. I also think
PLD 1991 Supreme Court 731 is not applicable to the facts of the present case
as the issue raised therein before the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court related to the entitlement of the nominee to benevolent fund
under the Federal Employees' Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Act 1964. In
this regard, I refer to the last para of the aforesaid judgment wherein it is
made clear that the question of entitlement of a nominee under group insurance
by reference to Shariat was not addressed as it was not part of the subject
matter of the appeal.
5. The present
case simply involves the question of distribution of insurance money among the
legal heirs which include not just the petitioner as a nominee but others
including Respondents No. 1 and 2. Keeping in view the foregoing discussion, I
have no hesitation in saying that the petitioner had no right to deny the other
heirs from receiving their shares as per their entitlement. The plea of the
petitioner that the insurance money received has been utilized for re-payment
of the debts of the deceased due in respect of remaining installments for plot
which he had purchased, does not appear to be supported by record. As regards
the ground of suit not being properly framed either the civil judge has
inherent powers to take notice of subsequent events and do justice to save the
parties from unnecessary litigation.
4. For the reasons
discussed above, I see no infirmity, illegality or irregularity on the part of
the Courts below who have exercised their jurisdiction lawfully. No
interference is called for by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction,
therefore, this civil revision is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(R.A.) Revision dismissed.
