Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : GOPALRAO EKBOLE
Koruprolu Talupulu - Appellant
Versus
Dasetti Narasamma - Respondent
Decided On : 09-23-65
Provident Fund - Property Rights - The court held that the amount of Provident Fund belonged to the nominee and not the deceased, and therefore, could not be treated as an asset of the deceased in the hands of the nominee. The judgment confirmed that the house constructed from this amount did not belong to the deceased.
Fact of the Case:
The only point involved in this revision petition is whether the amount of Provident Fund is the property of the deceased or is that of the nominee.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Provident Fund amount belonged to the nominee and could not be treated as an asset of the deceased in the hands of the nominee. The judgment of the Learned Additional Subordinate Judge was deemed correct.
Issues: Property rights of Provident Fund, ownership of assets derived from the fund
Ratio Decidendi: The amount of Provident Fund belonged to the nominee and not the deceased, and therefore, could not be treated as an asset of the deceased in the hands of the nominee.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) THE learned Advocate for the petitioner is not present, I have, therefore, heard the learned Advocate for the respondent. The only point involved in this revision petition is whether the amount of Provident Fund is the property of the deceased or is that of the nominee. This very point fell for consideration in. In the Goods Stanley Austin Cardigan Martin AIR 1939 Cal 642. It was held by their Lord ships that would not be an asset of the deceased in the hands of the nominee. It is the property belonging to the nominee. Admittedly, the respondent was the nominee of the Provident Fund. The Provident Fund amount which he got after the death of the deceased, would be his and could not be treated as an asset of the deceased in the hands of the respondent. Assuming, therefore, that the house was constructed out of this amount, even then that house does bot being to the deceased. The Judgment of the Learned Additional Subordinate Judge, therefore, in conclusion is correct and I see no reason to interfere with it.
( 2 ) THE revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs.
( 3 )
( 4 ) REVISION dismissed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
