- (1.) The plaintiffs are the appellants in this appeal. The suit is laid for a declaration that the plaintiffs along with the 1st defendant are entitled to a share in the provident fund amount of late Srinivasa Rao, the husband of the 1st plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2 to 4, in five equal shares and for the consequential relief to direct the 2nd respondent to pay the 4/5th share of the plaintiffs towards the provident fund amount and for costs. The 1st defendant is the mother of late Srinivasa Rao. Late Srinivasa Rao was an employee under Railway Authorities the 2nd defendant and even before his marriage he joined the service and at that time he nominated the 1st defendant his mother as the person to receive the provident fund in the event of his death. After the marriage he did not change the nomination and allowed to continue the original nomination unaltered. He died on 25-3-1980. When the 1st defendant wanted to withdraw the amount on the strength of the nomination the present suit is filed for a declaration and injunction as stated above.
(2.) The defence was that the mother being the nominee is entitled to exclude all other heirs and the provident fund is liable to be paid to her exclusively. The trial court framed issues on this controversy and held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share in view of the nomination and the nomination did not become invalid by virtue of the subsequent marriage and the provident fund vested in the 1st defendant by virtue of the nomination and by the subsequent death of the subscriber Srinivasa Rao, and consequently dismissed the suit. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs.
(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the judgment of this Court in Talupulu vs. Narasamma holding that the provident fund, amount is the propetry of the nominee and cannot be treated as an estate of the deceased in the hands of the nominee, is not correct and the learned Judge who decided that case did not consider the conflict of judicial opinion, and in particular in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarbati Devi vs. Usha Devi though arises under the Insurance Act supports the conclusion that the nominee though entitled to receive the amount has no beneficial interest to the fund and must hold it for the benefit of other heirs of the deceased. It is admitted the provident fund in question is governed by Provident Fund Act 19 of 1925 (herenafter called the Act).;