Sunita vs National Insurance Company Ltd. Advocate - Sh. Alok Sharma — 33/2025

Case under Indian Succession Act Section 372. Disposed: Contested--Allowed / Granted after Full Trial / Hearing on 11th May 2026.

Case disposed

Civil Misc. Non connected (38) - CIVIL MISC (NC)

CNR: RJJH010006622025

Filing Number

156/2025

Filing Date

21-Apr-2025

Registration No

33/2025

Registration Date

28-Apr-2025

Court

DJ ADJ Jhunjhunu District HQ

Judge

1-District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

11-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed / Granted after Full Trial / Hearing

Last updated 27-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Indian Succession Act Section 372

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sunita

    Adv. Sh. Kishor Kumar Sharma

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.National Insurance Company Ltd. Advocate - Sh. Alok Sharma

  2. 2.State Bank Of India

  3. 3.Har Aam V Khas

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-May-2026

    Order

    Case Summary: The District Court of Jhunjhunu granted Sunita's petition for a succession certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Sunita's unmarried son Rahul died in a road accident on October 4, 2024, with active insurance policies: ₹2,00,000 under the Prime Minister's Security Insurance Scheme (via National Insurance Company) and ₹15,00,000 personal accident cover (via United India Insurance Company). The court determined that Sunita, as the deceased's mother and sole first-class heir under Hindu succession law, is entitled to receive both insurance claim amounts. The court rejected the insurance company's argument that the nominated beneficiary (the deceased's deceased father) should receive the funds, holding that a nominee acts as a trustee/agent and ultimate succession rights are governed by succession law. The certificate was ordered issued upon submission of an indemnity bond of ₹17,00,000. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-May-2026

    Disposed

    District and Sessions Judge

  4. 04-May-2026

    Orders

    District and Sessions Judge

  5. 27-Apr-2026

    Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings

    District and Sessions Judge

  6. 06-Apr-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    District and Sessions Judge

  7. 23-Mar-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    District and Sessions Judge

  8. 06-Mar-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    District and Sessions Judge

  9. 23-Feb-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    District and Sessions Judge

  10. 02-Feb-2026

    Adr u/s Section 89 CPC/ Counseling

    District and Sessions Judge

  11. 19-Jan-2026

    Adr u/s Section 89 CPC/ Counseling

    District and Sessions Judge

  12. 05-Jan-2026

    Adr u/s Section 89 CPC/ Counseling

    District and Sessions Judge

  13. 01-Dec-2025

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    District and Sessions Judge

  14. 03-Nov-2025

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    District and Sessions Judge

  15. 13-Oct-2025

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    District and Sessions Judge

  16. 15-Sep-2025

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    District and Sessions Judge

  17. 01-Sep-2025

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    District and Sessions Judge

  18. 04-Aug-2025

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    District and Sessions Judge

  19. 14-Jul-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  20. 21-Apr-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 33/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: The District Court of Jhunjhunu granted Sunita's petition for a succession certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Sunita's unmarried son Rahul died in a road accident on October 4, 2024, with active insurance policies: ₹2,00,000 under the Prime Minister's Security Insurance Scheme (via National Insurance Company) and ₹15,00,000 personal accident cover (via United India Insurance Company). The court determined that Sunita, as the deceased's mother and sole first-class heir under Hindu succession law, is entitled to receive both insurance claim amounts. The court rejected the insurance company's argument that the nominated beneficiary (the deceased's deceased father) should receive the funds, holding that a nominee acts as a trustee/agent and ultimate succession rights are governed by succession law. The certificate was ordered issued upon submission of an indemnity bond of ₹17,00,000. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case