REDNAM DHARMARAO Vs. REDNAM VENKATA MAHALAKSHMAMMA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SRIRAMARAO Naidu, the husband of the first respondent was the Huzur Sheristadar in the Coconada Collectorate. Being a Government servant, he was required to subscribe to the General Provident Fund. He had quarrelled with his wife and they had lived apart for several years. On the 6th January, 1940, he nominated as the persons entitled to receive the money standing to his credit in the Fund, should he die before retirement, the two plaintiffs and the third defendant. The plaintiffs are the sons and the third defendant is the daughter of Sriramarao's cousin, Purushottamarao Naidu. It appears from a document filed in the case that in nominating these persons he stated that he had no family. He died on the 30th April, 1942, without having become reconciled with his wife. His nomination remained unvaried and he left a will under which he purported to leave his provident fund money to the two plaintiffs and the third defendant. If his wife were still a member of the family within the meaning of Rule 2(1)(c) of the General Provident Fund (Madras) Rules, the nomination was invalid and he had no light to dispose of his provident fund moneys by will. We shall make further reference to this aspect of the case later. The widow (the first defendant) claimed to be entitled to the amount standing to her husband's credit in the Fund, namely, Rs. 13,805. The Provincial Government agreed that she was entitled to the money and directed the Accountant -General to pay it up to her by a named date unless a Court of law had passed an order to the contrary in the meantime. The result was that this suit was filed on the 13th January, 1943, the Provincial Government being made the second defendant.

(2.) THE Subordinate Judge held that there was no necessity for evidence to be led. He was of opinion that the case could be decided on the pleadings and the provisions of the Provident Funds Act and the rules framed there under. He held that the nomination of the plaintiffs and the third defendant was invalid as the first defendant had not ceased to be a member of her husband's family and that she was entitled to the money. Consequently he dismissed the suit with costs. The first plaintiff alone has appealed.

(3.) RULE 2(1)(c)(i) says: