IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.101 of 2011 1. SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH, son of Ram Govind Singh 2. Kajal Kumari, minor daughter of Satendra Kumar Singh, Through and under the natural guardianship of her father Satendra Kumar Singh, Resident of village and P.O. Ladaura, , P.S. Kalyanpur, District Samastipur ….. Petitioners …. Appellants Versus 1. UNION OF INDIA through its Secretary, (Home Affairs) CISF, Head Office, New Delhi 2. I.G., CISF (Ministry of Home Affairs), Kolkata 3. Senior Commandant, CISF Unit, NSCBIA, Kolkata 4. Deputy Commandant, CISF Unit, NSCBIA, Kolkata 5. Senior Commandant, CISF Unit, Bihar , Patna 6. Deputy Commandant, CISF Unit, Bihar, Patna …. Respondents …. Respondents 7. Laxman Pd. Son of Late Biran Singh Resident of village – Pipari, P.S. Sakra, District Muzaffarpur …… Private Respondents ----------- For the Appellants : Mr. Naushaduzzaha, Advocate For Union of India : Mr. Gopesh Kumar, C.G.C. ------ 2 20.01.2011 The office objection mentioned as defect no. ‘J’ is to the effect that appellant no. 1 Satendra Kumar Singh was not a party to the writ petition and similar objection in respect of respondent no. 7 Laxuman Pd.. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the writ petition was filed in the name of appellant no. 2 Kajal Kumari, mentioning the name of appellant no. 1 as a father but through the guardianship of her maternal 2 grandfather Laxuman Pd.. According to the learned counsel for the appellants the order passed by the writ Court under appeal is in favour of Kajal Kumari, appellant no. 2, but it adversely effects the interest of appellant no. 1, Satendra Kumar Singh, her father because nomination to receive the death-cum-retiral benefits made by his wife in his favour was subsequently changed in favour of the daughter Kajal Kumari, appellant no. 2, and the writ Court has held that the subsequent nomination of Kajal Kumari is valid and has to be accepted by the authorities of C.I.S.F.. The nomination made by mother of Kajal Kumari was clear that the nomination was being made in favour of Kajal Kumari a minor under the guardianship of Laxuman Pd., the maternal grand father of Kajal Kumari. In the present appeal the appellant no. 1 has joined himself as a party and has also placed Kajal Kumari under his guardianship and wants to challenge the order of the writ court which is in favour of Kajal Kumari, a minor under the guardianship of her maternal grandfather Laxuman Pd. In our considered view, the appellant no. 1 is 3 now having adverse interest against his minor daughter and in such circumstances if he is aggrieved by the order under appeal dated 18.12.2008 passed in C.W.J.C. 815 of 2008, he can make an attempt to get that order reviewed on permissible ground but he cannot be permitted to maintain this appeal along with appellant no. 2 Kajal Kumari showing her as a minor but under his guardianship. It is well settled in law and the position has also been clarified by the writ Court that nomination does not create absolute ownership of the nominee in the property received and the nominee holds a property in trust for and on behalf of all the true legal heirs. Thus, the defect is found to be justified and since , this appeal is found not maintainable, it is dismissed with the liberty that appellant no. 1 may pursue his remedy through appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. Spd/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)