Right of Nomination does not override the right of heirs: Chhattisgarh High Court
A nominee under a Hire Purchase Agreement cannot be accepted as the owner when the legal heirs according to the Hindu Succession act are still sustained. The right of heirs according to the Hindu Succession Act overrides the right of nomination. This was decreed by the single judge bench comprising of Hon’ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri in Dr. Manu Gouraha Vs. The Chief Estate Officer, Chhattisgarh Housing Board and Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 2781 of 2021] on the 09th of July 2021 before the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. The brief facts of the case are, the father of the petitioner bought a house (HIG-218) at Danganiya from the housing board under a Hire purchase agreement. Under this agreement, he nominated the petitioner (his son) as a nominee. The father died on 10.08.2012 leaving behind his wife Smt. Pushpa Gouraha, son Dr. Manu Gouraha, petitioner herein and two daughters namely Mrs. Shefali Shrivastav and Mrs. Madhulika Sharma. The petitioner claimed that the agreement for the house is to be changed to his name since he was the nominee assigned. However, the housing board observed that there were a lot of internal disputes and found it suitable to record the names of all the four heirs as the owner. Challenging this, the petitioner has filed the present petition before this Hon’ble Court. The counsel for the petitioner contends that, as per the Hire Purchase Agreement, clause 12, in case of death of hirer, the name of the legal heirs would be mutated and if some nominee is nominated then in such case the nominee would be entitled. He submits that in the Hire Purchase Agreement Annexure 1, the petitioner’s name was nominated; therefore, his name is required to be recorded. The counsel for the respondent however argues that, since dispute exists for ownership and mutation of the name, as such, in order to protect the right of the heirs, the Housing Board decided to record four names of the legal heirs as against the property and no illegality can be attached to it and the right of nomination will not override the right of heirs; therefore, the petitioner can approach to the competent civil court for declaration and file civil suit, if so advised. The learned judge heard the contentions of both the parties and decreed that since there is no will left behind by the deceased, section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 will apply to decide on matters relating to succession of properties belonging to males. “Section 8, Clause (a) reads that devolution would be firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class I of the Schedule. Heirs of class I of the Schedule include son, daughter, widow and so on. Therefore, the petitioner being son, two daughters namely Mrs. Shefali Shrivastav &amp; Mrs. Madhulika Sharma and the widow Smt. Pushpa Gouraha would be class I heirs as per Section 8. In absence of any WILL all the heirs would be jointly inheriting the property, even if the Hire Purchase Agreement and the nomination of the petitioner would not bind the other heirs so as to defeat the devolution as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in favour of class I heirs who are the widow and daughters”. The court also relied on Smt. Sarbati Devi &amp; Another v. Smt. Usha Devi (1984) I SCC 424 wherein, it was decreed that while dealing a case of life insurance, it held that the nominee’s interest would be subject to claim of the assured under the law of succession. Applying a similar rationale to the present case, the court ruled that the nomination clause cannot override the right of heirs and thus dismissed the petition since it was devoid of merit.
 1 AFRHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURW.P.(C) No. 27821Dr. Manu Gouraha S o. Late Narendra Kumar Gouraha Aged About 45Years Permanent Address House No. 08 Phase 2 Rajkishor Nagar Bilaspur Tahsil & District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Present Address M 2 1University Campus Vikram University Ujjainrks eaMy rhu ekg ls vf kd vof k ds fy rFkkvU ekeys esa] d ekg ls vf kd vof k ds fy vkcaVu tkjh jgus nsldsxk@eaMy HkkM+snkj ds uketn O fDr k mlds dkuwuh okfjlksa dk ukeHkkM+snkj ds uke ds LFkku ij j[k ldsxk] c krsZ fd og@os djkj ds vf kdkjksarFkk nkf Roksa dks Lohdkj djus ds fy lger gksA 6.The nomination form attached with this Hire Purchase Agreement purportsthat name of Manu Gouraha was nominated to be recorded after death ofN.K.Gouraha as against the house HIG 128 at Danganiya. N.K.Gourahadied on 10.08.2012 thereafter the dispute started.7.After death of N.K.Gouraha the wife Smt. Pushpa Gouraha filed anapplication on 06.03.2013 to record her name being the wife. In responseto such letter the Housing Board wrote a letter to two daughters and thewife observing that since there is some dispute existing in between thelegal heirs therefore they may obtain the decree of declaration from thecompetent civil court which is Annexure P 5. One of the daughter Mrs.Shefali Shrivastav also emailed a letter on 09.11.2013 to the Estate OfficerHousing Board that uptill the decree is obtained the name of all the legalheirs be recorded in respect of the house HIG 128. Thereafter theHousing Board in 2015 & 2018 communicated to the wife and thedaughters with a copy to the petitioner herein that name of all the legalheirs would be recorded and they were asked to appear to sign certainpapers so that all the four names may be recorded. Lastly since thepetitioner insisted that only his name may be recorded as per clause 12 of 4 the Hire Purchase Agreement the impugned letter dated 15.03.2021 hasbeen issued. 8.The facts of this case would suggest that there is no WILL by LateN.K.Gouraha in favour of the petitioner alone. Section 8 of the HinduSuccession Act 1956 provides for general rules of succession in the caseof males which contemplates that the property of a male Hindu dyingintestate shall devolve according to the provisions of chapter II. Section 8 Clausereads that devolution would be firstly upon the heirs being therelatives specified in class I of the Schedule. Heirs of class I of theSchedule include son daughter widow and so on. Therefore thepetitioner being son two daughters namely Mrs. Shefali Shrivastav & Mrs.Madhulika Sharma and the widow Smt. Pushpa Gouraha would be class Iheirs as per Section 8. In absence of any WILL all the heirs would bejointly inherit the property even if the Hire Purchase Agreement and thenomination of the petitioner would not bind the other heirs so as to defeatthe devolution as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 infavour of class I heirs who are the widow and daughters. 9.The Supreme Court in case of Smt. Sarbati Devi & Another v. Smt.Usha Devi1 has discussed the right of nominee and observed whiledealing a case of life insurance it held that the nominee s interest wouldbe subject to claim of the assured under the law of succession. 10.Following the analogy in the instant case after death of Late N.K.Gourahain whose name the house was held it would become a part of estatewhich would be governed by the law of succession. Since in this case there is no testamentary succession as such all the heirs by applicationof Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act would get equal right to theproperty left over i.e. estate of the deceased. The right of nominee assuch cannot be held to be over and above to the exclusion of the legal1(1984) I SCC 424 5 heirs and consequently the letter written by the Housing Board wherein allthe names have been recorded subject to any declaration from the civilcourt no fault can be attributed to it. The petition is devoid of merit andaccordingly it is dismissed. Sd (Goutam Bhaduri)JUDGEAks 