SISTA VENKATACHALAM Vs. BHAMIDIPALLI SARAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff -respondent in, second appeal is the mother of the late Venkatanarayana who died without issue on 21 -11 -1937. Subhadramma was the widow of Venkatanarayana. On his death, she succeeded to his separate properties which consisted of (1) the amount payable under an insurance policy which Venkatanarayana had taken out and (2) the amount lying to the credit of Venkatanarayana in his provident fund account. Subhadramma acquired two items of Immovable properties. The finding of the lower appellate Court was that item 1 of the two items shown in the schedule to the plaint was acquired by Subhadramma with the money she got from the insurance company and that item 2 was purchased with the monies drawn from the provident fund. Before Subhadramma died she executed the Will under which the defendants -appellants in the second appeal claimed the properties. On the death of Subhadramma Venkatanarayana's mother as the reversioner to the estate of Venkatanarayana sued the defendants for recovery of possession of these properties. Both the Courts held that the will was a genuine document. But the learned District Munsif dismissed the plaintiff's claim holding that the two items of properties should be treated as the absolute properties of Subhadramma. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge held that while the amount in the provident fund of the late Venkatanarayana had become the absolute property of Subhadramma when it came to her, she had only a widow's estate in the amount paid under the policy of insurance. Since it was with that amount that item 1 had been purchased, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of item 1 as reversioner to the estate of the late Venkatanarayana after the death of Subhadramrna. The defendants preferred the second appeal.

(2.) THE only question for determination in this second appeal is whether the learned Subordinate Judge was right in holding that the amount paid under the insurance policy had not become the absolute property of Subhadramma which she could dispose of by her will.

(3.) THE real question is, did the money payable under the policy become part of the provident fund of Venkatanarayana? If that question is to be answered in the affirmative Subhadramma as the nominee would be absolutely entitled to all the amounts that had been credited to the provident fund of Venbatanarayana. If, however, the question is answered in the negative, the amount collected under the policy of insurance will have to be treated as an item of the estate of the late Venkatanarayana distinct from the amount which lay to his credit in his provident fund, and the nomination under the rules of the provident fund would not govern a devolution of interest in this part of the estate of Venkatanarayana, that is the amount paid under the policy of insurance.