AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prasenjit Mandal, J.—Heard the learned advocate for the petitioners. This application is at the instance of the objector in respect of a succession case being Act 39 Case No. 97/12 pending before the learned District Delegate at Serampore.
The contention of the petitioners is that the opposite party herein being a nominee having obtained the money, the succession case has become infructuous; so, they have prayed for rejection of the said succession case.
Having heard the learned advocate for the petitioners and on going through the materials on record, I am of the view that the succession case shall proceed in accordance with law and it has nothing to do with the matter of receiving of money by the nominee from the concerned LIC. The nominee at best can withdraw the money but she is not the owner of the money withdrawn from the LIC. Her position with regard to withdrawal of money could at best be as ''trustee'' and not beyond that. So, in order to ascertain the rights of the parties with regard to succession of the matter, the appropriate-steps are for disposal of the said succession case in accordance with law.
Accordingly, in my view, the learned District Delegate has rightly passed the impugned order dated 25.06.2013 in Act 39 Case No. 97/12. There is no scope of interference.
The revisional application is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
There shall be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties at an early date.