RAJAM ALIAS RUKMINI AMMAL Vs. PARAMESWARA AYYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant and petitioner in the civil revision petitions is the widow of one S. Venkatarama Aiyar and they arise out of proceedings in execution of the decree against her in respect of debts due by her husband. Money paid into Court by an insurance company in respect of a life policy taken up by the late Venkatarama Aiyar was sought to be attached by these creditors, and she contended that the money was not assets which could be attached at the instance of her husband's creditors. The said Venkatarama Aiyar was employed in the Forest department under the Government and he was subscribing to the General Provident Fund. Later on he took out a life policy in the Asia Life Insurance Co., Ltd., Bombay, in which he nominated his first wife, Lakshmi Ammal, as the beneficiary, if she should survive him. Subsequently he was not able to pay the premium and as permitted by the rules framed by the Government in respect of the General Provident Fund he drew money from the provident fund for paying the premium and mortgaged this insurance policy to the provident fund in respect of the amount so drawn. Unfortuntately, as Lakshmi Ammal predeceased him he married the appellant as his second wife. He did not take effective steps to constitute her a, beneficiary under the insurance policy with the result that before he could give effect to it he died. On his death the policy which had been mortgaged to the Accounts Officer was re- assigned to the appellant, his widow and heir. The insurance company deposited the amount into Court having been apprised of the claims of the creditors. The creditors attached the amount as belonging to their udgmentdebtor, Venkatarama Aiyar. The appellant contended that the insurance amount deposited by the company represented the provident fund of the deceased judgment-debtor, at any rate to the extent of the amount that was withdrawn, from the fund to pay the premia and that that part of the insurance amount partook the same character as the provident fund and therefore it could not be attached in execution of the decree. Both the Courts have held that no portion of the amount can be said to be provident fund so as to entitle the widow to resist the attachment. Hence, the appeal and the petitions to revise that order.

(2.) The facts have been stated above and there is no dispute about them. The beneficiary nominated by the deceased having died and the plaintiff not having been effectively nominated as the beneficiary in respect of the policy the property in the policy was in Venkatarama Aiyar and on his death the policy which was mortgaged to the Government was assigned over to the plaintiff because she happened to be the heir of her husband and therefore entitled to the properties of her husband. Therefore there can be no dogfot that the amount paid by the insurance company in respect of the policy was the amount of the deceased and as such was an asset of the deceased in the hands of the appellant.

(3.) What is urged, however, is that in respect of the money subscribed to the provident fund, it was the policy of the Government as is evident from the rules and the Government Provident Funds Act that it was money intended for the benefit of the nominee in respect of the fund and not the property of the subscriber if he happened to die before it matured and could be paid over. So far as the money in deposit in the fund to the credit of the subscriber, Venkatarama Aiyar, was concerned, it was certainly money that cannot be said to be an asset of the deceased Under Section 3(1) of the Provident Funds Act, 1925, a compulsory deposit in any Government or railway provident fund shall not be liable to attachment under any decree or order of any civil, revenue or criminal Court in respect of any debt or liability incurred by the subscriber or depositor. Under Section 3(2) the sum standing to the credit of any subscriber to, or depositor in, any such Fund at the time of his decease and payable under the rules of the fund to any dependent subscriber or depositor or to such person as may be authorised by law to receive payment on his behalf, shall, subject to any deductions authorised by the Act, and save where the dependant is the widow or child of the subscriber or depositor, subject also to the rights of an assignee under an assignment made before the commencement of this Act, vest in the dependant, and shall, subject as aforesaid, be free from any debt or other liability incurred by the deceased or incurred by the dependant before the death of the subscriber or depositor. So it is only the sum standing to the credit of the subscriber in the fund at the time of his decease that is not liable to be attached or proceeded against for the debts of the deceased subscriber. Can it be said that this amount deposited by the insurance company payable under the life insurance policy is an amouat standing to the credit of the deceased subscriber in the fund at the time of his decease? Provident Fund is defined as being a fund in which subscriptions or deposits of any class or classes of employees are received and held on their individual accounts, and includes any contributions and any interest or increment accruing on such subscriptions, deposits or contributions under the rules of the fund. This money is certainly not in the individual account in the fund. Nor is it any interest or increment accruing on such subscriptions. So under the terms of the Provident Funds Act, this amount is not an amount which is exempt from being proceeded against in respect of the debts of the deceased.