The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'dependant' under the Provident Funds Act and the rules governing nominations and declarations under the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Provident Fund Rules.

Burn, J.

1. This is an appeal from an order of the learned District Judge of Chittoor on a petition by a Brahmin lady named Lakshmamma under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act. The lady alleged that she was the widow of one P. Sambiah Sarma who had died while in employment as a station master on the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway. She claimed a succession certificate to enable her to draw the amount standing to the credit of P. Sambiah Sarma in the Railway Provident Fund. It was not disputed that Sambiah Sarma, the depositor, had made a declaration under the Provident Fund Rules in favour of Lakshmamma, nominating her as the person to whom he desired the amount at his credit to be paid in the event of his death. One P.S. Subramanyam the son of P. Sambiah Sarma by his first wife opposed the application and alleged that Lakshmamma had never been legally married to his father. The learned District Judge found that Lakshmamma had lived with P. Sambiah Sarma as his wife for many years, but by reason of certain documents proved before him the learned Judge held, that the lady had been married before to one Madyala Subramaniah. He held therefore that she could not have been the legally wedded wife of P. Sambiah Sarma. The learned Judge found accordingly that the provident fund money must go to the son of P. Sambiah Sarma because the son comes within the definition of "dependant" in Section 2 of the Provident Funds Act of 1925 and because the nomination which had admittedly been made by Sambiah Sarma in favour of the appellant must be treated as an unlawful nomination. The learned Judge states in paragraph 3 of his judgment that

Under the Provident Funds Act only a dependant may be lawfully nominated and a dependant is defined as a wife, husband, parent, child, minor brother, unmarried sister, deceased sons widow and child or paternal grandparent.

2. We are unable to find any provision in the Provident Funds Act, which says that only a dependant may be lawfully nominated. On the contrary we think that Section 4 of the Provident Funds Act clearly implies that a nomination may be made in favour of a person other than a dependant. The learned District Judge has apparently been misled by applying to this case the rules of the Government General Provident Fund. The learned Judge quotes Rule 7(2) of the General Provident Fund Rules which is to the effect that a subscriber shall nominate one or more members of his family and Rule 7(3) says that in the absence of a family any person may be nominated but such nomination shall not be valid so long as the subscriber has a family. Rule 7(4) provides that on acquiring a family a nomination of an outsider previously made must be formally cancelled. These rules are not applicable to the Provident Fund of the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway. We have examined the rules of the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Companys Provident Fund and they do not contain anything corresponding to Rule 7(2), (3) and (4) of the General Provident Fund. Rule 21 of the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Provident Fund Rules says that when a deposit account is first opened, the member concerned shall be required to give a declaration in Form G. 45, particularising the person or persons by whom he is desirous that the whole or any portion of his deposit shall be received in the event of his death. It is provided that this declaration shall remain in force unless it is revised or cancelled by means of a notice in writing given to the Chief Auditor and Accountant in Form G. 45-A. The rule permits a depositor to make a fresh declaration at any time and it also provides that if the depositor is not a Hindu, Mohammadan, Buddhist or other person exempted from the operation of the Indian Succession Act any declaration already submitted by him shall forthwith become null and void on the occasion of his marriage or re-marriage and a fresh declaration shall be required. Form G. 45 bears upon its face an in