KORUPROLU TALUPULU Vs. DASETTI NARASAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Advocate for the petitioner is not present, I have, therefore, heard the learned Advocate for the respondent. The only point involved in this revision petition is whether the amount of Provident Fund is the property of the deceased or is that of the nominee. This very point fell for consideration in . In the Goods Stanley Austin Cardigan Martin AIR 1939 Cal 642. It was held by their Lord ships that would not be an asset of the deceased in the hands of the nominee. It is the property belonging to the nominee. Admittedly, the respondent was the nominee of the Provident Fund. The Provident Fund amount which he got after the death of the deceased, would be his and could not be treated as an asset of the deceased in the hands of the respondent. Assuming, therefore, that the house was constructed out of this amount, even then that house does bot being to the deceased. The Judgment of the Learned Additional Subordinate Judge, therefore, in conclusion is correct and I see no reason to interfere with it.

(2.) The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs.

(3.) CJ/DHZ.