THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5089 of 2007 ORDER: The first respondent filed O.S.No.29 of 2006 in the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, against the second respondent and the petitioner herein for the relief of partition and separate possession of the property left by his father by name Nagella Bharathaiah. The second respondent is the mother of the first respondent. It was alleged that the petitioner was a concubine of Bharathaiah. It is further stated that Bharathaiah died intestate on 28.08.2006, leaving behind him substantial amounts in the form of service benefits and that there was also Life Insurance policies in his name. According to the first respondent, the petitioner has withdrawn considerable amounts from the savings bank account in State Bank of Hyderabad, Nakrekal, taking advantage of her acquaintance with the deceased. I.A.No.1688 of 2006 was filed with a prayer to direct the petitioner herein to redeposit a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- said to have been withdrawn by her into the same bank. The application was opposed by the petitioner on several grounds. Through its order, dated 07.02.2007, the trial Court allowed the I.A. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition. Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in a suit for partition, the direction to redeposit amount against a person who is not a coparcener or co- sharer is untenable in law. He contends that the petitioner received various amounts in her capacity as nominee and that the order passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained in law. Sri M.Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for the first respondent, on the other hand, submits that even assuming that the petitioner was nominated by the deceased, she cannot appropriate the amounts for herself, and at the best, she can receive the amount for and on behalf of the actual legal heirs of Bharathaiah. The second respondent is the wife and the first respondent is the son of late Bharathaiah. The petitioner also states that she was married to the same person. Even assuming that any marriage took place between them, the question as to whether there existed earlier marriage and if so, the legal status thereof, needs to be examined through the trial of the suit. The petitioner does not deny the allegation that she received various amounts that were paid on account of the death of Bharathaiah. Even assuming that she figured as a nominee, she cannot take the amount for herself. The obligation of the nominee is only to receive the amount and to distribute the same to the legal heirs of the deceased. In its extensive discussion, the trial Court made specific reference to the precedents rendered by the Supreme Court and this Court on this aspect. Therefore, the petitioner was not justified in claiming and withdrawing the amount and appropriating the same for herself. There is some dispute as to the quantum of amount withdrawn by the petitioner. While the first respondent states that the petitioner has withdrawn Rs.10,00,000/-, the petitioner puts the same at a very low figure. However, it is admitted that about Rs.5,00,000/- was withdrawn and part of it was spent for the education of the child. This Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is required to redeposit Rs.3,50,000/- within four weeks. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed in part, modifying the order under revision to the effect that the petitioner shall be under obligation to redeposit a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- within four weeks from today to the credit of the suit. The amount so deposited shall be subject to the result of the suit. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 23rd December 2009 dr