The nominee of a provident fund has only the exclusive right to receive the fund. The provident fund remains the property of the deceased subscriber and is available for distribution amongst his heirs in accordance with their personal law.

RAMACHANDRA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THE appeal is directed against the decree and Judgement dismissing O. S. No. 33/79 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Sangareddy, a suit filed for partition of the properties, belonging to the estate of one late S. M. Ghouse, who died on 9-1-1979, due to a fatal accident, while working as a Lineman in the State Electricity Board at Siddipet.

( 2 ) THE parties are referred to according to their position in the suit. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are respectively the father and mother of late S. M. Ghouse. The said Ghouse married one Razia Begum through whom, three daughters plaintiffs 3 to 5 all minors are born to him. On the death of Razia Begum in the year 1972 S. M. Ghouse married the 1st defendant as his second wife. Defendant 2 is his son through defendant1. Defendant 3 is the posthumous daughter of S. M. Ghouse by the second marriage. Various amounts, detailed as items 1 to 16 of the plain schedule, belong to the estate of late. S. M. Ghouse either as amounts standing to his credit or which became payable consequent on his death. Item 7 of the plaint Schedule involving an amount of Rs. 16. 08 ps. Relates to the arrears of salary due to late S. M. Ghouse for the period 1-1-1979 to 9-1-1979. Item 9 involving an amount of Rs. 16. 37 related to the arrears due, on account of medical aid. It is common ground that, subsequent to the death of late S. M. Ghouse , defendant 1 drew these amounts covered by items 7,9 and 10 involving the total amount of Rs. 57-45ps.

( 3 ) SHORTLY thereafter, disputes arose between the parties because of the claim for a share made by plaintiffs 1 and 2 in the plaint schedule property. Defendant 1 by notice dated 21-6-1979 denied the rights of the plaintiff and the suit, out of which this appeal had arisen, was filed on 26-7-1979, claiming partition. Defendants 4 to 8 impleaded in the suit are the officers who were, by the date of suit, in custody of the various items, listed out in the plaint schedule.

( 4 ) THE suit was resisted by defendants 1 to 3 on various grounds. It is firstly submitted that there is a conflict of interest between plaintiff 1 who is representing plaintiffs 3 to 5 as a next friend and plaintiffs 3 to 5 and there is, therefore, no proper representation for plaintiffs 3 to 5 in the suit. It is submitted secondly that plaintiffs 1 and 2 are not dependant-parents and they are not, therefore, entitled to claim any share. It is then submitted that the nominees under the life Insurance Corporation policies covered by items 1 and 2 of the schedule are alone entitled to be paid the amounts, to the exclusion of all other legal heirs and that, similarly, the family benefit fund covered by item No. 5 and the gratuity covered by them No. 6 are payable only to defendant 1 and the children of S. M. Ghouse and that plaintiffs 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim any share in those amounts.

( 5 ) DEFENDANT 4 Life Insurance Corporation has given particulars, with reference to the individual policies covered by items 1 to 3 and pleaded that the Corporation is prepared to pay the claim amounts to any person as the Court directs, but such payment would arise only when the Corporation decides to admit the claim, after compliance with the requirements of the Corporation to its satisfaction. Defendant-bank 7 is concerned with items 14 and 15. The bank made a counter claim for the repayment by the legal heirs of the loan borrowed by S. M. Ghouse on the security of items 15 of the plaint schedule. Defendant 8 who is concerned with item 16 of the plaint schedule denied the claim made by plaintiffs 1 and 2 but otherwise did not dispute the right of plaintiffs 3 to 5 and defendants 1 to 3 receive that amount. Defendants 5 and 6 remained ex parte. On issue No. 1:- "whether the amounts mentioned in the plaint schedule are the matruka and liable for partition. " The learned Subordinate Judge held that the schedule properties accruing to the estate, after the death of S. M. Ghouse, are not matr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document