IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1389 OF 2005 Jagannath Shankar Gadage and Ors. ....Appellants V/s. Namdeo Laxman Mane and Ors. ....Respondents ===== Mr.Uday Warunjikar, adv.for appellants. Mrs.S.V.Sonawane,adv.for respondents no.1, 2, 4 to 7. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Dated : 30th June 2009. PC : 1. This first appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 29th March, 2003 passed by the court of Ad-Hoc Additional District Judge- Satara in Special Civil Suit No.33 of 2003. The appellants are the original defendants no.1, 3, 4 and 5. Respondents no.1 and 8 are the original plaintiffs. The dispute in the suit relates to the assets left by one Sunanda who is the sister of appellants no.1, 3 and 4. She is the sister-in-law of respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 and respondents no.2 to 8 are her heirs and legal representatives. By the present suit, respondents no.1 to 8 claim that they are entitled to receive the movable properties belonging to Sunanda consisting of gold ornaments, domestic utensils, amounts in the fixed-deposits and the amounts in the bank accounts. After considering the evidence led before it, the trial court partly decreed the suit directing respondent no.10-bank to pay the amount under the fixed-deposit of Rs.1,60,000/- and the interest accrued thereon to respondent no.1 and also the amount in balance in Savings Account No.29/6338 with interest. It further directed the bank to pay amounts under the two fixed-deposits in the sum of Rs.30,000/- and Rs. 40,000/- with interest thereon to appellant no.1. As regards the movable articles of gold ornaments and utensils etc.the suit was dismissed. 2. Mr.Warunjikar, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the court ought to have considered the evidence of appellant no.1 of contribution to the fixed deposit made by him. It is the claim in the evidence of appellant no.1 that he was employed in Bombay and he used to send some money to Sunanda at the native place which amount was included in the fixed deposit in the sum of Rs.1,60,000/-. In the evidence, the appellant no.1 however has not specified the total amount of money sent by him to Sunanda and the period during which the same was sent. As against this, there is evidence led by respondents no.1 to 8 that Sunanda had received a sum of about Rs.1,71,000/- towards the arrears of family pension, part of which i.e. Rs.1,60,000/- was invested by her in the fixed-deposit. It is thus seen that there was no evidence before the court as regards the contribution by appellant no.1 to the fixed deposits which could have enabled him to claim part of the amount. Appellant no.1 is the nominee in respect of the fixed-deposits. However, as a nominee the appellant does not get any right to the amount in the fixed-deposits. The nomination only decides the hands that can receive the amount which is held by the nominee on behalf of the rightful owner i.e. the heirs of Sunanda. In the circumstancce, there is no disputed question of law arising in the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed in limine. (Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota,J.)