SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1943 Supreme(Mad) 347

HORWILL
Korlam Sitaramaswamy – Appellant
Versus
Korlam Venkatarama Rao – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Horwill, J.

1. The appellant and the respondent are step-brothers, being the sons of one K. Adinarayana Patnaik, who had been subscribing to a provident fund according to the rules of the Bengal Nagpur Railway Co., and who, at the time of his death, had a sum of Rs. 7200 odd standing to his credit. He had nominated his first wife under the rules as the person to whom the sum standing to his credit in the provident fund should be paid on his death. She died as early as August 1929; but he made no change in the nomination. Upon his death in 1941, he left a second wife, whom he married after the death of his first wife, and two sons, one by the first wife and the other by the second wife. The latter is the appellant and the former the respondent. The learned advocate for the appellant contends that as the nominee had predeceased her husband, the sum due to Adinarayana Patnaik was a sum belonging to him and undisposed of by will, and therefore belonged equally to his two sons. The respondent, on the other hand, contends that the sum vested in his mother, the nominee, and that therefore he was entitled to the same exclusively. That view was upheld by the Subordinate Judge of Chic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top