Presumption of valid marriage and nominee rights under insurance policy: cohabitation and succession principles determine estate distribution.

Long cohabitation, social acceptance and surrounding conduct can support a presumption of valid marriage when direct proof is unavailable, and the burden lies on the challenger to displace that presumption. On the stated facts, evidence of cohabitation and marriage-related documents supported the finding of lawful marriage. Nomination under a life insurance policy authorises receipt of the policy proceeds and discharges the insurer, but it does not confer beneficial ownership or exclude heirs' succession rights. The policy amount therefore remains part of the deceased's estate and is distributable under the law of succession.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a valid marriage between the deceased and the first respondent could be presumed on the basis of long cohabitation, social acceptance, and surrounding conduct; (ii) Whether nomination under the insurance policy conferred beneficial ownership over the policy amount, or whether the amount formed part of the deceased's estate for devolution under the law of succession.

Issue (i): Whether a valid marriage between the deceased and the first respondent could be presumed on the basis of long cohabitation, social acceptance, and surrounding conduct.

Analysis: A valid marriage is a question of fact capable of proof by direct and circumstantial evidence. Where parties have lived together for a substantial period and have been accepted by society as husband and wife, the law permits a presumption in favour of marriage. Such presumption may be drawn from conduct, surrounding circumstances, and documentary evidence showing treatment of the parties as a married couple. The burden lies heavily on the person asserting that no marriage took place. On the facts, the evidence of cohabitation, marriage-related documents, and subsequent conduct supported the finding of marriage.

Conclusion: The presumption of valid marriage was rightly drawn and the finding that the deceased and the first respondent were lawfully married was upheld, against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether nomination under the insurance policy conferred beneficial ownership over the policy amount, or whether the amount formed part of the deceased's estate for devolution under the law of succession.

Analysis: Nomination under the insurance law only authorises the nominee to receive the policy amount and gives a valid discharge to the insurer. It does not create a title in the nominee or exclude the heirs from claiming the amount under succession law. Accordingly, the policy proceeds remained part of the assured's estate and were distributable according to the applicable law of succession. On that basis, the appellant, as one of the heirs, was entitled only to her share in the estate.

Conclusion: The nominee had no exclusive beneficial right to the insurance money, and the estate was liable to be distributed among the heirs, including the appellant, in accordance with succession law.

Final Conclusion: The findings of the courts below on marriage and succession were sustained, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A long and acknowledged cohabitation, supported by surrounding conduct and evidence, can raise a presumption of valid marriage, and nomination under a life insurance policy does not divest the heirs of their succession rights to the policy proceeds.

---