Mst. RAZIA BEGUM vs PUBLIC AT LARGE S — 2025 PLD 40 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Mst. RAZIA BEGUM VS PUBLIC AT LARGE S. 72---Life Insurance Policy, proceeds of---Tarka---Nominee assigned by the deceased---Scope and effect---Deceased in his lifetime purchased an insurance policy wherein he nominated his wife as his nominee---Mother of the deceased filed an application for issuance of succession certificate, which was concurrently declined---Claim of the petitioner(being mother of the deceased) was that she was entitled to inherit 1/6th share of the insurance policy amount, whereas, respondent (wife/widow) denied her right on the ground that being nominee she was solely entitled to receive the whole insurance policy amount---Deceased left behind mother (petitioner), widow (respondent/ nominee), a daughter and two sons (respondents)---Courts below non-suited the petitioner on the ground that the amount of the Insurance Policy did not fall within the ambit of "Tarka", and was not liable to be inherited by the legal heirs and only the nominee is entitled to receive the amount of said Life Insurance Policy---Legality---Admittedly, when a person secures Insurance Policy he makes certain payments from time to time as per the schedule from his pocket and on the maturity of Policy in his lifetime, he is entitled to receive the same---Moreover, as per subsection (2) of S. 72 of Insurance Ordinance, 2000, the Policy holder can change the nominee or cancel the nomination at any time before maturity of the policy---It is further provided in the subsection (5) of S. 72 of the Ordinance 2000 that in the event of death of the nominee or the nominees before the policy matures the amounts secured by the policy shall be payable to the legal heirs of the deceased policy holder or legal representatives, or the holder of a succession certificate, as the case may be---It is nowhere mentioned that after the death of nominee the amount would be disbursed amongst the legal heirs or legal representatives of the nominee---Hence, it clarifies that the nomination shall not operate as a gift or will because had the nomination been a gift or will, then after the death of the nominee the amount would devolve on the heirs of nominee rather than the heirs of policy holder---Both the Courts below had erred in law while dismissing the succession petition of the petitioner and had failed to properly appreciate the question involved in the lis as the present case related to Life Insurance Policy and the nominee was appointed by the nominator just to fulfill the legal requirement of S. 72 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000---High Court set-aside the impugned judgments of the Courts below, and the petitioner, being mother of the deceased, was held entitled to receive her due share out of the policy proceeds---Revision petition, filed by mother of deceased was allowed accordingly.

Mst. RAZIA BEGUM vs PUBLIC AT LARGE S — 2025 PLD 40 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD