What kind of rights does father have where nomination given

Sir, I think nomination is done only to simplify the procedure for settlement of claims of the deceased and so, it does not take away the rights of legal heirs of the depositor.  The nominee recieves the amount and rights on securities merely as a trustee. Here, in this case, wife of the deceased has her right over her husband's LIC policies and PF, but she has to get that amount from her father in law after he recieves such amount as a nominee.

Father is a trustee for the legal heirs of the deceased.  Hence the legal heirs can claim from the nominee of the deceased who received the amount from LIC and PF

by chandrasekarabharathi

 Nomination is not ownership. It is done to facilitate receiving money from PF, LIC, Banks, office, brokers etc. The nominee holds the monies received as a trustee. No more. Please download SC judgement.

Yes, nomination is not ownership.  Nominee is authorised only to receive.

 Most of us suffer from this notion that any nomination gives the nominee the ownership right. Those who are not accustomed to this should understand that it is not so and other legal heirs have equal right to demand their share from the nominee who has received the money from any quarter on account of the nomination.

Anil Ji, Thank you for this very important decision posted by you and the contants of the information. I am really grateful to all of you.

 I concur with my friends, clarifying the status of nominee for LIC, PF, etc. Nomination is merely to facilitate the LIC/Company disburse the amount to an authorised person, the dues of the deceased the nominee is LEGALLY bound by the respective succession law. Nominee, as a Trustee has to discharge his duties by distributing the proceeds to the all the legal heirs including the wife, in the proportion as per the respective succession law. This position has been affirmed by Supreme Court in a catena of cases.'Vasudevan

nominee is only a trustee nomination cannot override succession this was first decided by Hon'ble Apex Court in year 1984 Ciataion is AIR 1984 page 546

correction page is 346 not 546