M MON SINGH Vs. MOTHI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of the learned District Judge, Chingleput, granting Mothi Bai the respondent here a succession certificate entitling her to collect from the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Company the sum of Rs. 3,038 being the provident fund amount standing to the credit of one Lakshmana Singh, a servant of the company who died in 1931. Mothi Bai is the widow and heir of one Bhavani Singh whom Lakshmana Singh nominated as the person to whom the amount standing to his credit should be paid in the event of his death while still in service. But Bhavani Singh died in 1921. The certificate has been granted to the respondent as his heir. The appellant, who is the heir of the deceased subscriber contended before the learned District Judge that the effect of nomination is merely to entitle the nominee if he is alive at the death of the subscriber to draw out the money. That contention is pressed on appeal. The order of the learned District Judge is "Having regard to the provisions of the Provident Fund Rules I think prima facie the petitioner-respondent here is entitled to the certificate". Rule 23 of the rules which reproduces Section 5 of the Provident Funds Act, leaving out words which are irrevelant is: (1) Notwithstanding any disposition whether testamentary or otherwise by a depositor, of the sum standing to his credit in the Fund, any nomination in the prescribed declaration form which purports to confer upon any person the right to receive...such sum on the death of the depositor shall be deemed to confer such right absolutely until such nomination is varied or expressly cancelled by the depositor. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Succession Certificate Act of 1889, any person nominated in the declaration form shall on the death of a depositor be entitled to the grant of a certificate under that Act entitling him to receive payment of such sum and such certificate shall not be deemed to be invalidated or superseded by any grant to any other person of Probate or Letters of Administration to the Estate of the depositor.

(2.) The short question for decision is: Does this "absolute right to receive" the money which is conferred by these provisions mean a vested right in the money, which passes to the heir of the nominee at his death? We answer this question in the affirmative.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant relies on a decision of a single judge of the Lahore High Court, Hardial V/s. Janki Das (1928) 108 I.C. 894 : A.I.R. 1928 Lah. 773, where it is held (by Addison, J.) that: The object of the nomination system is merely to designate some person to whom the Provident Fund money may be paid.