The nominee under the Provident Funds Act, 1925, and Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, is not entitled to receive the amount exclusively in the case of intestate succession, depriving the heirs of the deceased.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of a suit for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs' share in the suit schedule properties. The appellants are the plaintiffs and respondents are the defendants. The relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendants is not in dispute. Plaintiff-1 is the second wife of late k. l. srinivasan. Plaintiffs-2 to 6 are the children of first plaintiff and late k. l. srinivasan. The defendants 1 to 4 are the children of late k. l. srinivasan through his first wife. The first plaintiff was married to k. l. srinivasan after the death of his first wife. It is also not in djspute that tbe suit schedule properties as described in schedule-a and scheduie-b to the plaint arc the properties of late k. l, srinivasan. However, in the written statement, the defendants contended that apart from (he properties described in suit schedules 'a' and 'b', the first plaintiff received a sum of Rs. 1,68,278. 88 from the central bank of india, k. g. road branch, Bangalore and life insurance corporation of india, Bangalore which was payable to the legal representatives of late k. l. srinivasan consequent to his death. In the rejoinder filed by the plaintiffs, it was specifically stated that the plaintiffs received tbe following amounts: provident fund-rs. 98,650. 32 gratuity-rs. 12,704. 32 insurance-rs. 38,000. 00 in addition to this, it is not disputed before us that a sum of Rs. 5,496/- was also received by the first plaintiff by way of interest accrued on the provident fund amount. Thus, in all, the first plaintiff received Rs. 1,55,300. 64. In addition to this, in the rejoinder, the plaintiffs further claimed that they had incurred the following expenditure;"a)FOR annual ceremony-rs. 3,000. 00 b)k. e. b. bills-rs. 271. 48 c)forwards debt of Sri C. G. Gopala Sastry-rs. 20,000. 00 d)repayment of festival advance obtained by the deceased Sri K. L. Srinivasan to the central bank of india, Bangalore-rs. 700. 00 e)telephone bills-rs. 1,350. 88 f)house-tax paid 16 municipal corporation-rs. 2,394. 00 g)unpaid bills (domestic) of Sri K. L. Srinivasan paid-rs. 890. 35 h)domestic expenditure from april, 1982 to january, 1984 for plaintiffs and defendants-rs. 17,600. 00 i)total-rs. 46,206. 71"the plaintiffs contended that the aforesaid sum of Rs. 46,206. 71 was to be adjusted in the amount if any found to be payable to the defendants.

( 2 ) SCHEDULE 'a' to the plaint relates to a building-site measuring 45' x 95' with arcc building thereon bearing Bangalore corporation door No. 266 situated in 44lh cross, 9th block, 5th main, jayanagar, Bangalore. Schedule 'b' consists of movables.

( 3 ) THE trial court, on ihe basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: (1) whether the sum of Rs. 1,68,278. 88 ps. Received by the plaintiffs from central bank and l. i. c. of India on the death of late k. l. srinivasan constitute family amounts and liable for partition? (2) whether the deceased mother by name Smt. Nagarathnamma of the defendants is also entitled to a share in the said sum of Rs. 1,68,278. 88 ps. ? (3) whether the defendants arc entitled to claim interest on the share amount claimed by them? (4) if so, at what rate? (5) whether the suit is not properly valued for purpose of payment of court- fee? (6) in what share the parties are entitled in the event of partition? (7) what decree or order?

( 4 ) IN support of the case of the plaintiffs, they examined one m. s. raghunathan, an employee of the central bank of india, Bangalore city, Bangalore as P. W. 1 and plaintiff-1 gave evidence as P. W. 2. They also produced it documents which were marked as exhibits p. 1 to p. 11.

( 5 ) DEFENDANTS examined harini subrabmanyam as d. w. 1 and the third defendant gave evidence as d. w. 2. They also produced 12 documents which were marked as exhibits d. 1 to d. 12. 5. 1, on appreciating the evidencton record, the trial court answered issue No. 1 partly in the affirmative and issues 2,3 and 5 in the