Nomination under insurance law does not create title; Math-owned policies could not be diverted by later nomination or will.

Nomination under Section 39 of the Insurance Act does not transfer ownership in policy proceeds; it only authorises payment to the nominee and leaves title with the true owner. The Court also held that where documentary evidence showed the insurance policies belonged to the Math, they formed part of the religious endowment and could not be diverted for the personal benefit of the Mahant's wife by a later nomination or will. Earlier correspondence and tax records were treated as more reliable than the subsequent nomination. The policies were therefore held to belong to the Math, and the nominee had no superior claim to the proceeds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether nomination under Section 39 of the Insurance Act conferred any title in the policy proceeds on the nominee. (ii) Whether the insurance policies were the assets of the Math so that the nominee and the will in her favour could not defeat the Math's title.

Issue (i): Whether nomination under Section 39 of the Insurance Act conferred any title in the policy proceeds on the nominee.

Analysis: The distinction between assignment and nomination was treated as decisive. Assignment transfers the policy and the rights under it, whereas nomination only authorises payment to the nominee on the death of the assured and does not transfer ownership in the policy itself. A nominee, therefore, has no vested title merely by reason of nomination.

Conclusion: Nomination did not confer title on the respondent and could not by itself defeat the true owner's claim.

Issue (ii): Whether the insurance policies were the assets of the Math so that the nominee and the will in her favour could not defeat the Math's title.

Analysis: The documentary evidence, including the deceased Mahant's correspondence with the insurer and the income-tax authorities, showed that the policies were treated by him as belonging to the Math and that the intended nominee was to be the successor Mahant. The Court held that the earlier statements by the deceased Mahant were more reliable than the later nomination in favour of his wife. Since the policies were Math assets, they could not be diverted for the personal benefit of the Mahant's wife by nomination or will.

Conclusion: The policies belonged to the Math, and the respondent had no superior claim to their proceeds.

Final Conclusion: The plaintiff was entitled to succeed and the decree of the courts below was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 39 of the Insurance Act, nomination does not create title in the nominee, and property shown on the evidence to belong to a religious endowment cannot be diverted by a later nomination or testamentary disposition in favour of a private beneficiary.

---