In this article
A nominee does not automatically become the beneficial owner of every financial asset in India. For bank deposits and demat securities, nomination generally enables payment or transmission, while ultimate entitlement remains governed by applicable succession law. Life insurance requires separate treatment. Section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938 recognises beneficial entitlement for specified nominees, but courts have differed on whether that entitlement overrides competing succession rights.
This distinction matters when a spouse, parent, child or NRI family member is named as nominee.
The same person may be nominated on a fixed deposit, a demat account and a life insurance policy. Yet the legal consequences of those three nominations may differ.
The first question is not simply whose name appears in the nomination record. It is what legal right that nomination creates.
What is the difference between a nominee, a legal heir and a beneficiary?
A nominee is someone designated under the rules governing a particular asset to receive money or securities, or to facilitate their transfer, when the account holder or policyholder dies.
A legal heir generally refers to someone entitled under the applicable law of succession, particularly where a person dies without a valid Will governing the asset.
A person who takes under a Will may more precisely be described as a legatee or beneficiary. Beneficial rights may also arise under a trust or a specific statutory provision.
These descriptions can refer to the same person. But they do not necessarily represent the same legal right.
Three questions must be separated:
- Who can receive the money or securities from the institution?
- Who is legally entitled to retain the asset for their own benefit?
- Which documents establish that entitlement?
The first concerns payment or transmission. The second concerns ownership and succession. The third concerns evidence.
A bank may discharge its payment obligation to a properly recognised nominee without deciding every inheritance claim. A depository participant may transmit securities in an otherwise qualifying, undisputed claim without deciding a contested succession dispute.
Life insurance is more complicated because the statute expressly provides beneficial entitlement to certain family nominees, while the relationship between that provision and succession law has been disputed in judicial decisions.
This is why the word nominee alone cannot answer an ownership question.
Does a bank nominee become the owner of the deposit?
A bank nominee is entitled to receive payment in accordance with the statutory nomination framework. But nomination alone does not ordinarily make that person the beneficial owner to the exclusion of lawful heirs.
Section 45ZA of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 governs nomination relating to deposits.
The Supreme Court addressed this distinction in Ram Chander Talwar v. Devender Kumar Talwar (6 October 2010).
The dispute concerned a nominee who claimed exclusive ownership of money deposited by his deceased mother. The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the banking nomination displaced succession rights.
The statutory provision permitted the nominee to receive payment from the bank. It did not convert that right into exclusive beneficial ownership of the money.
The deposit remained subject to the applicable law of succession.
What changed under the banking nomination rules in November 2025?
The Banking Laws (Amendment) Act, 2025 and the Banking Companies (Nomination) Rules, 2025 introduced revised nomination arrangements effective 1 November 2025.
For bank deposits, customers may nominate up to four individuals through either of two arrangements:
- Simultaneous nomination: Multiple nominees are identified with specified percentage allocations that together equal 100%.
- Successive nomination: Nominees are identified in an order of priority, with the applicable nomination taking effect according to the statutory conditions.
Suppose a depositor nominates one child for 60% and another for 40% under a simultaneous nomination.
Those percentages govern the bank-facing nomination arrangement. They do not automatically establish that the two children must inherit the deposit beneficially in those proportions.
The applicable succession rights remain a separate question.
Bank lockers and articles held in safe custody have different rules. The revised framework permits successive nominations for those facilities, not the simultaneous deposit arrangement.
What happens to a jointly held deposit?
Joint ownership adds another distinction.
The account mandate and any survivorship clause affect how the bank may pay the surviving account holder or holders.
Under the banking nomination framework, the nominee’s right in a jointly held deposit ordinarily arises after the death of all joint depositors.
The surviving account holder’s authority to receive payment is not necessarily conclusive proof of exclusive beneficial ownership.
The account mandate, ownership history and applicable inheritance rights must be examined separately.
Does a demat nominee become the owner of inherited shares?
Transmission of shares into a nominee’s demat account does not, by itself, make the nominee the final beneficial owner against lawful succession claims.
The Supreme Court considered this question in Shakti Yezdani v. Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar (14 December 2023).
The dispute concerned the effect of nomination under the companies and depositories framework on succession rights.
The Court held that the nomination provisions did not establish an independent form of succession that displaced the applicable inheritance law.
This matters because the nominee may become the recorded holder after transmission. But that entry does not necessarily extinguish another person’s valid entitlement under a Will or succession law.
What changed under the 2026 SEBI nomination rules?
SEBI issued revised nomination rules for demat accounts and mutual fund folios on 29 May 2026, effective 1 September 2026.
Under the revised framework:
- An investor may nominate up to three persons.
- For a new single-holder account or folio covered by the circular, nomination is required unless the investor submits the prescribed opt-out declaration.
- Nomination is optional for jointly held accounts or folios.
- All joint holders must consent when a nomination is provided or changed.
SEBI also issued a revised transmission framework on 23 July 2026, effective 30 days after issuance.
Importantly, paragraph 4.1.1 of that framework expressly describes the nominee as receiving the deceased holder’s securities as trustee on behalf of the legal heirs.
That is a direct regulatory distinction between transmission and beneficial inheritance.
What happens if no demat nominee exists?
Where there is no valid nomination, the claimant or legal heir follows the applicable securities transmission process.
The ordinary documents include a prescribed transmission request, a verifiable death certificate, relevant account details and supporting securities records.
Additional evidence depends on the claim category, its value and the asserted basis of entitlement.
SEBI’s July 2026 framework provides simplified documentary requirements for qualifying claims, including a separate Quick Transmission Processing category for specified low-value cases.
For example, the circular specifies a Quick Transmission Processing threshold of ₹30,000 for securities held in dematerialised mode and a simplified documentation threshold of ₹30 lakh. These figures relate to claim processing, not inheritance entitlement.
A disputed claim involving competing heirs or contested ownership remains distinct from an ordinary administrative transmission.
The revised framework also prescribes a processing period of up to 21 calendar days from receipt of all required documents, subject to its conditions.
Why does life insurance require separate treatment?
Life insurance is governed by Section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938. Following the 2015 amendments, that section expressly recognises beneficial entitlement for specified family nominees.
But whether that entitlement excludes competing heirs under succession law has produced different judicial interpretations.
Who can be a beneficial nominee?
Under Section 39(7), where the holder of a life insurance policy on their own life nominates specified family members, including parents, spouse or children, the statute provides that the qualifying nominee or nominees shall be beneficially entitled to the amount payable under the policy.
This is subject to the other provisions of Section 39.
There is also an express exception where, considering the nature of the policyholder’s title to the policy, the policyholder could not have conferred the relevant beneficial title.
The statutory wording is therefore materially different from the ordinary bank-deposit nomination framework.
However, the statutory phrase beneficially entitled does not conclusively settle every disputed inheritance claim.
Why have courts differed on beneficial nomination?
After the 2015 amendments, High Courts have taken different approaches to the relationship between Section 39(7) and succession law.
The Allahabad High Court in Smt. Kusum v. Anand Kumar (30 April 2025) expressly discussed the differences among High Court interpretations. The Court favoured succession rights in the case before it and granted a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Karnataka High Court, in Smt. Neelavva v. Smt. Chandravva (20 February 2025), held that Section 39(7) does not override applicable succession law where heirs establish competing claims.
Other decisions point the other way. In Ramgopal v. General Public (5 April 2019), the Rajasthan High Court read the amended Section 39(7) as entitling the qualifying nominee to the proceeds, and some later High Court decisions have followed that approach where the policy was the policyholder’s own.
These decisions demonstrate why a qualifying family nominee should not automatically be described as the absolute owner of policy proceeds in every case.
Equally, the express language of Section 39(7) cannot be ignored.
The applicable statutory provision, relevant binding judicial authority, succession law and actual documents must be considered together.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Shakti Yezdani is important for securities nomination. It should not be presented as a final Supreme Court determination of the distinct post-2015 beneficial-nomination question under Section 39(7).
What if the insurance nominee is not among the specified family members?
Section 39 permits nominations beyond the family categories identified in subsection (7).
However, someone outside those specified categories does not acquire the special beneficial entitlement under Section 39(7) merely because they are recorded as nominee.
The right to receive the policy proceeds and the right to retain them beneficially must therefore be distinguished.
Can a Will change a life insurance nomination?
Section 39(2) recognises cancellation or alteration of a nomination by the prescribed means, including a Will in appropriate circumstances.
The provision also protects an insurer making a bona fide payment to the recorded nominee where the required written notice of the alteration or cancellation has not been delivered.
This creates two separate questions:
- Whom can the insurer validly pay according to its records and the statutory notice requirements?
- Who is beneficially entitled after considering the valid nomination, any effective alteration, the applicable succession law and relevant judicial authority?
It would be incorrect to say that every Will automatically overrides every insurance nomination. It would also be incorrect to say that an insurance nomination can never be affected by a subsequent valid Will or competing inheritance claim.
What other insurance exceptions matter?
Section 39 contains further qualifications.
An assignment or transfer of the policy may affect nomination under subsection (4), subject to its exceptions.
Subsections (7) and (8) do not override creditors’ rights preserved by subsection (9).
Subsection (10) addresses the application of the beneficial-nomination provisions to policies maturing for payment after commencement of the Insurance Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015.
Policies governed by Section 6 of the Married Women’s Property Act, 1874 require separate treatment. Section 39(12) sets out the interaction between those policies and the nomination provisions, including an express proviso.
These are statutory conditions, not simply insurance-company documentation preferences.
Nominee versus legal heir: how do the three assets compare?
| Question | Bank deposit | Demat securities | Life insurance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can a nominee receive the asset? | Yes, under the banking rules | Yes, through transmission | Yes, subject to policy and statute |
| Does nomination alone settle beneficial ownership? | Generally no | Generally no | Section 39(7) provides a special entitlement, but its interaction with succession rights is judicially contested |
| Does succession law matter? | Yes | Yes | Yes, including in disputes involving beneficial nominees |
| Can the institution process an ordinary claim without deciding every inheritance dispute? | Generally yes | Generally yes | Payment follows the relevant policy and statutory framework |
| Principal records | Deposit and nomination records | Demat holding and nomination records | Policy, nomination, assignment and other operative documents |
The word nominee appears in all three instruments. Its legal effect must be determined from the law governing the particular asset.
What if the nomination and Will identify different people?
Consider a hypothetical situation.
A person holds an Indian bank deposit, a demat account and a life insurance policy.
The spouse is named as nominee in all three records.
The person also leaves a Will identifying an adult child as beneficiary of the relevant assets.
After the person’s death, the spouse approaches all three institutions.
Should the outcome be identical?
Not necessarily.
For the bank deposit, nomination facilitates payment to the recognised nominee. The child’s entitlement under the Will, if valid and applicable to the deposit, remains a separate succession question.
For the demat account, nomination can facilitate transmission to the spouse. The final beneficial entitlement remains subject to the applicable inheritance rights.
For the life insurance policy, the spouse may fall within Section 39(7). But the legal outcome requires examination of the nomination, any effective alteration, policy ownership, statutory exceptions and the judicial interpretation applicable to competing succession claims.
The Will cannot simply be ignored. Neither can Section 39.
This illustration does not determine the outcome of an actual inheritance dispute. It demonstrates why the same nomination arrangement can raise different legal questions for different assets.
What documents does a nominee or legal heir normally need?
The ordinary documents depend on the asset and whether the claim arises under a valid nomination, a survivorship arrangement, a Will, intestate succession or a court order.
Bank deposits
A registered nominee generally submits the bank’s prescribed deceased-depositor claim request, together with proof of death, identification and relevant account details.
Where there is no effective nomination or survivorship arrangement, the bank may require additional evidence of entitlement.
A succession certificate or probate is not automatically compulsory for every deceased bank account claim. The applicable banking directions, claim circumstances and any dispute determine the appropriate requirements.
Demat securities
Under SEBI’s July 2026 framework, an ordinary nominee’s transmission request generally involves the prescribed form, a verifiable death certificate, the nominee’s demat client master list and applicable holding records.
Where there is no nomination, the claimant follows the relevant transmission category and supplies additional evidence where required.
The July 2026 framework also removed the routine mandatory probate-of-Will requirement from its securities transmission procedure.
The Repealing and Amending Act, 2025 omitted Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, effective 20 December 2025.
That does not mean probate, letters of administration or judicial proceedings have become irrelevant to all estates. A disputed Will or ownership claim may still require an appropriate legal proceeding.
Life insurance
An ordinary death claim usually involves the insurer’s prescribed claim form, death evidence, policy details, identity and payment information.
Additional documents may be material where there is an assignment, a changed nomination, a disputed beneficiary, a trust arrangement or a competing succession claim.
Acceptance of claim documents by an insurer does not necessarily amount to a judicial determination of every competing ownership right.
What changes when the nominee or heir lives outside India?
Suppose the nominee or heir lives in Dubai, London or New York while the deceased held Indian financial assets.
The Indian institution may need documents issued overseas. Separately, the claimant’s legal entitlement, FEMA classification and proposed remittance route may need consideration.
Can an overseas death certificate be used?
SEBI’s July 2026 transmission framework recognises multiple methods of certifying an overseas-issued proof-of-death document.
Depending on the circumstances, a certified true copy may be supported through an eligible overseas notary or judicial authority, Indian consular certification, apostille or specified overseas banking certification.
Where the document is not in English, the circular also requires the prescribed English translation.
The relevant method should be selected according to the applicable regulatory procedure and the document.
These are SEBI securities-transmission requirements. They should not automatically be applied to every bank deposit or insurance claim.
Can an NRI remit inherited proceeds abroad?
Receiving an asset, establishing inheritance rights and obtaining permission to remit the proceeds abroad are separate questions.
The RBI Master Direction on Remittance of Assets provides specified facilities for remittance of certain Indian assets and proceeds.
For qualifying NRIs and persons of Indian origin, including qualifying OCI cardholders under the applicable definition, the framework permits specified remittances of up to USD 1 million per Indian financial year, subject to documentary conditions and other requirements.
Separate provisions apply to certain other foreign nationals and transactions requiring RBI approval.
The USD 1 million facility is a conditional remittance permission. It does not determine who owns or inherits the asset.
The source of funds, asset character, claimant’s FEMA classification, account route and Indian tax compliance must be considered independently.
A bank’s willingness to transfer funds does not establish beneficial ownership.
Likewise, an Indian inheritance or remittance conclusion does not automatically settle estate, inheritance, income-tax or reporting consequences in the country where the beneficiary lives. Those foreign-law issues require examination by an appropriately qualified professional in that country.
What should families check in their nomination and succession records?
Nomination remains useful even where it does not settle beneficial ownership.
It can facilitate institutional processing and reduce avoidable difficulties for surviving family members.
But the nomination record should not be treated as a substitute for understanding succession rights.
A family reviewing its financial records should establish:
- Whether each bank account, deposit, demat account and insurance policy has a valid, current nomination.
- Whether percentage allocations, priority arrangements and nominee details comply with the rules for the particular asset.
- Whether joint ownership, assignments or special trust arrangements change the analysis.
- Whether the Will and other succession documents address the relevant assets.
- Whether the family can locate the documents needed for claims.
- Whether an overseas nominee or heir will need additional documentation or remittance permissions.
The Compliance Highway Rule™, an educational framework developed by CA Sagar Soman and discussed in What NRIs Are Not Told About India, offers a useful distinction: identify the legal question before answering it.
The bank may be deciding whom it can pay. The depository may be deciding whose account can receive securities. The insurer may be applying a statutory beneficial-nomination provision whose interaction with succession law remains contested.
The family is asking who is legally entitled to keep the asset.
A nomination can make an asset easier to receive. Whether it also establishes beneficial ownership depends on the instrument, the applicable law, the operative documents and, where relevant, the judicial interpretation governing the dispute.
That is why nomination and succession planning must be understood separately.
Legal and regulatory references
- Banking Regulation Act, 1949, particularly Section 45ZA.
- Banking Laws (Amendment) Act, 2025, particularly Sections 10 to 13.
- Banking Companies (Nomination) Rules, 2025.
- Supreme Court: Ram Chander Talwar v. Devender Kumar Talwar, 6 October 2010.
- Supreme Court: Shakti Yezdani v. Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar, 14 December 2023.
- SEBI: Modified Nomination Norms, 29 May 2026.
- SEBI: Simplified and Standardised Securities Transmission Framework, 23 July 2026.
- Insurance Act, 1938, particularly Section 39.
- Karnataka High Court: Smt. Neelavva v. Smt. Chandravva, 20 February 2025.
- Allahabad High Court: Smt. Kusum v. Anand Kumar, 30 April 2025, reported at (2025) 4 ILRA 26.
- Repealing and Amending Act, 2025.
- RBI Master Direction: Remittance of Assets, updated 29 June 2026.
This article is general educational material and does not constitute legal advice. Nomination, beneficial entitlement, succession, probate, insurance claims and remittance outcomes depend on the governing instrument, applicable personal and succession law, ownership history, documents, facts and dates. Contested entitlement questions require examination by appropriately qualified legal counsel. Foreign-country legal, inheritance, estate, reporting and tax consequences require advice from a qualified professional in the relevant jurisdiction.
Share this guide
Sources and review
Published