JUDGMENT

Pullan, J - By my order, dated 18th October 1929, I granted probate to the applicant of the will of the late Henry Harold Robinson. The applicant describes herself as the widowed sister of the deceased and she seeks to obtain probate without paying the court-fees on that portion of the estate which consists of a sum in deposit in the Bail way Provident Fund. I have been referred to two rulings of the Nagpur Judicial Commissioner's Court reported in Agnus Mary v. James William, A.I.R. 1925 Nag. 108 and Digamber, In re, A.I.R. 1926 Nag. 306. These rulings are practically identical, and the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner accepting a decision of the Board of Revenue in Bengal held that provident fund money is exempt from duty. I have not seen the decision of the Bengal Board of Revenue. The view taken by the Additional Judicial Commissioner in so far as he gives an opinion of his own is that provident fund money does not form an asset of the estate. He also observes that the railway company ordinarily refuses to pay the money without letters of administration by way of protection. I am not myself able to agree that provident fund money in deposit is not an asset of the deceased. I have been referred to two rulings of the Calcutta High Court: Hindley v. Joynarain Marwari, [1919] 46 Cal. 962, and Secy. of State v. Raj Kumar, A.I.R. 1923 Cal. 585 and to another ruling of the Bombay High Court Veerchand v. B.B. & C.I. Ry., [1905] 29 Bom. 259. All these judgments have discussed the nature of the provident fund in order to show that it is not liable to attachment-But provident fund is defined in the Provident Fund Act (Act 19 of 1925) as

a fund in which subscriptions or deposits of any class or classes of employees are received and held on their individual accounts....

2. It will appear, therefore, that a provident fund deposit is regarded as personal property, that is to say, an asset of the deceased. Section 4 of the same Act lays down the procedure of the officer of the Government or the railway as the case may be in making payments of the1 sum due if the depositor is dead. It is clear that he is required to pay the sum to a dependant, or to a nominee, when the sum does not exceed Rs. 5,000 without requiring letters of administration or probate, but where the sum exceeds five thousand rupees the nominee is required to produce either probate or letters of administration. In view of this provision of the Act I am inclined to-suppose that the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner had before him cases in which the railway company had required letters of administration either from a dependant or from a nominee in a case where the sum did not exceed Rs. 5,000. But it certainly appears from his order that in Bengal the procedure adopted is to dispense with the fees required for probate or letters of administration in every case. There is nothing in the Court-fees Act which helps the applicant. It is very desirable1 that there should be a procedure uniform in all provinces in matters of this kind, but I do not feel justified sitting singly in following the authorities to which I have been referred, feeling as I do that they are in conflict with the terms of the Provident Fund Act and the Court-fees Act. As, however, the matter is of considerable importance and may affect a large number of people who can ill afford to pay duty on the comparatively small sums which they receive from the provident fund of deceased persons, where they cannot claim to be dependants under the provisions of Section 2, Clause (c) of the Act, I refer this matter to a Full Bench under Section 14(1), Oudh Courts Act.

OPINION

Stuart, C.J.

3. This is a reference made by Pullan, J., to a Full Bench under Section 14(1), Oudh Courts Act. The question under reference arises in the following circumstances. Henry Harold Robinson, a Foreman in the employment of a State Railway, died on 6th August 1929, at Lucknow within the jurisdiction of this Court. His