( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the defendant, the Union of India, against a decree for Rs. 5,288-12-0 with costs passed by the Civil Judge, Class I, Narasimhapur.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are as follows: One Mohammad Khan, an employee in the g. I. P. Railway, died on 3rd February 1944, leaving no issue. The plaintiff was his legally married wife. Mahammad Khan was a subscriber to the Provident Fund. On his death there stood a sum of Rs. 4,515-14-0 in his account. Mahammad Khan had nominated his brother Dilawar Khan to receive the amount. Dilawar Khan predeceased Mohammad Khan, leaving behind him his widow Mst. Shakuran Bi. After the death of Mohammad Khan, claims to the money were made by Mst. Shakuran Bi and Mst. Aishi Bi, the widow of subscriber. The dispute was taken to the District Court and an application for the grant of a succession certificate was made. At first Mst. Shakuran Bi succeeded. Later the decision was reversed by the district Judge, who granted the certificate to Mst. Aisha Bi, the widow of the subscriber. A revision was filed by Mst. Shakuran Bi and two others in the High Court against that order. Mudholkar, J. , dismissed the revision and held that under Section 3 of the Provident Funds Act the amount standing to the credit of the subscriber vested in his dependent, the widow, and not in the nominee because the nomination became null and void on the death of the nominee before the subscriber. That decision of Mudholkar, J. , has since been reported in Shakuran Bi v. Aisha Bi, ILR (1951) Nag 407: (AIR 1950 Nag 244) (A ).

( 3 ) THE Railway authorities, however, declined to give the money in spite of the succession certificate and Mst. Aisha Bi was therefore compelled to bring the present suit against the Railway Administration and the Union of India. The learned Judge who tried this suit has decreed the claim of Mst. Aisha Bi in full. He had also commented very strongly upon the conduct of the Railway authorities, particularly the officers immediately concerned, in declining to give effect to the order of the High Court and the succession certificate granted to Mst. Aisha Bi.

( 4 ) THE appellant, the Union of India, con-tends that the decision of Mudholkar, J. , is erroneous. There has been a conflict of opinion in India, to which I shall advert presently but particular reliance is placed by the appellant on a decision given by grille, C. J. , and myself in Governor-General-in-Council v. Jagannath, ILR (1948)Nag 357: (AIR 1949 Nag 85) (A-1), which, it is contended, the learned District judge and Mudholkar, J. , were bound to follow in preference to the decision of the calcutta High Court in Nidhusuden Mukherji v. Bibha Batee Devi, ILR (1940) 1 Cal 476: (AIR 1940 Cal 395) (B), on which they relied. Mudholkar, J. , in dealing with the earlier Division Bench case of the Nagpur High court distinguished it - and, in my opinion, rightly so. In Governor-General in council v. Jagannath (A-1) (cit. sup.) the specific question which is before us now was not considered. In that case the nominee Tatya (brother of the subscriber)survived the nominator and the amount was paid to him. The widow and the son of the subscriber were claiming the amount as dependants, but it was paid to tatya on the strength of the nomination in his favour. His letter to the Railway authorities to pay the money to the dependents did not reach the Chief Auditor before payment was actually made to him, and the letter was held by the Division Bench to be no more than a pay-order liable to be cancelled by Tatya either expressly or by implication. It was not treated as an assignment of the claim under Section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act. ( 5 ) IN dealing with the case Grille, C. J. , and I only considered the respective claims of the nominee and the dependents. We declined to hold, as was done in the calcutta case above cited, that Section 4 (1) of the Provident Funds Act incorporates a preference in favour of dependents and held that Clauses (a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document