A nomination made by a depositor under Section 5(1) of the Provident Funds Act, 1925, is valid and effective, and the nominee is entitled to the provident fund amount to the exclusion of all other heirs.

DAS, J.

( 1 ) APPA Rao who was serving as a Railway guard died on 17-9-59. The plaintiff is his minor son through his predeceased first wife and M. Malati (defendantappellant-1) is his second wife. At the time of death, Appa Rao left the following amongst his other assets. 1. Savings Bank Deposit Rs. 1600-00 account No. 35110 in the Khurda Post Office 2. Gratuity Rs. 5200-00 3. Provident Fund Rs. 11664-78 deposit. . . In respect of the Provident Fund amount he nominated his wife M. Malati. After the death of Appa Rao, M. Malati (defendant-1) withdrew the said amount and deposited the same in the name of her father (D-2) in the post office savings bank. Defendant-2 having died during the pendency of the suit, defendants 2 to 6 were added as his legal representatives.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF's case is that after his father's death, there was some dispute between him and defendant-1 and the mother of Appa Rao over the division of the assets left by his father. The matter was referred to the Panchayat who gave an award (Ext. 1) to the effect that in respect of the Provident Fund amount the plaintiff will get l/3rd and the remaining 2/3rds will go to defendant-1 and the mother of Appa rao. The gratuity and the savings bank deposit would be shared equally between the plaintiff and the defendant-1. His case is that defendant-2 the mother of Appa rao was entitled to l/3rd share in the assets left by his father and she having died in the meanwhile, the plaintiff as the grandson of defendant-2 is entitled to inherit her l/3rd share and thus his share has been increased to two-thirds in respect of the assets left by Appa Rao. Defendant-1 did not agree to abide by the decision of the Panchayat given by way of an Award on 28-9-59. So he filed the present suit claiming l/3rd share in the Provident Fund amount and one half share in the gratuity and savings bank deposit as decided by the Panchayat. Alternatively, his prayer was that in case the award is not accepted, he may be given a decree for realising two-thirds out of the aforesaid amounts left by his father.

( 3 ) THE defendants challenged the validity of the award. Their main defence is that the Provident Fund amount is the exclusive property of defendant-1 who received the same on the strength of the nomination made by her husband and the plaintiff is not entitled to any share therein.

( 4 ) THE learned Trial Court found that the award, Ext. 1, is not binding on defendant-1 and cannot be enforced in this suit. He held that the plaintiff is entitled to two-thirds share in the properties left by his father including the provident Fund amount, the gratuity and the savings bank deposit. He rejected the plaintiff's claim for a share in the movables.

( 5 ) DEFENDANT-1 the main contestant in this appeal challenges the correctness of the decision of the trial Court. The other defendants-appellants do not claim any interest in the property. There is no cross-appeal by the plaintiff in respect of that part of the claim which has been rejected. The dispute in the present appeal is solely confined to the Provident Fund amount and the decision of the Court below regarding other two items of property is not challenged before this Court.

( 6 ) IT is not disputed that the appellant (defendant-1) is the second wife of Appa rao and was appointed by him as the nominee to receive the provident fund deposit of Appa Rao and in fact, she received the same. The main contention of mr. Misra, learned counsel for the appellant, is that the effect of the nomination is that the amount shall vest absolutely in the nominee and the same shall not be treated as any other asset of the deceased so as to be available for distribution amongst all his heirs, or dependents as defined in Section 2 (c) of the Provident funds Act, 1925 (Act XIX of 1925), hereinafter described as 'the Act'. Mr. Rao, on the other hand urged that under Section 5 (1) of the Act, the nominee is only given the right to collect the amount from the Pro