1 SA 166.2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 166 OF 2010 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. N.N.Shinde,Advocates for the appellant. .......................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 21/03/2011 PER COURT : 1. This is plaintiff’s Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff had filed Suit for injunction restraining the respondent no. 1 from disbursing the amount to the respondent no. 4 and for declaration that the plaintiff as the nominee of the deceased Mohd. Omer, has got right to receive the said amount. The Trial Court dismissed the Suit. The plaintiff preferred Appeal. The appellate Court dismissed the Appeal and confirmed the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The plaintiff has assailed the said Judgment in the present Second appeal. 2 SA 166.2010 3. Mr. Nanasaheb Shinde, the learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contends that the deceased Mohd. Omer had shown the present appellant as the nominee and the amount was to be given to the appellant due to love and affection. In such circumstances, the plaintiff’s right can not be affected. The learned counsel further contends that the plaintiff has absolute right to receive the said amount. Even initially the defendant no. 4 had given no objection, but subsequently she withdrew the same. The conduct of defendant no. 4 also shows that it was the intention of Mohd. Omer to give this amount to the plaintiff. The learned counsel further contends that the defendant no. 4 has no objection to allow the plaintiff to withdraw some amount, but her objection was only that the plaintiff should not withdraw whole amount. The learned counsel relied on the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in the case of Mrs. Uma Sehgal and another V/s Dwarkadas Sehgal and others reported in AIR 1982 Delhi – 36. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the Judgments. 5. The fact that the plaintiff’s name was incorporated as nominee in the said National 3 SA 166.2010 Savings Certificate is held by both the Courts. But, it is a trite law that by mere nomination, the plaintiff would not get any right unless and untill plaintiff shows her legal right as successor to withdraw the said amount. The Court below has relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vishin N. Khanchandani and another V/s Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani and another reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court – 2747, which is in respect of National Saving Certificate only, wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that the nominee in the National Saving Certificate on the death of its holder, does not become entitle to the sum due under the certificate to the exclusion of the legal heirs. 6. In light of the settled position of law, the Judgments of the Court below can not be faulted with . If there is some arrangement between the plaintiff and defendant no. 4 i.e. the defendant no. 4 on her own volition agrees to give some amount, then it is the internal arrangement between the parties. 7. The Judgment in the case of Mrs. Uma Sehgal referred supra would not be applicable in the present case in the wake of the Judgment of the Apex Court referred supra. 4 SA 166.2010 8. In light of the fact that the Second Appeal being sans substantial question of law, the Second Appeal is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/SA 166.2011