Skip to content


Koruprolu Talupulu Vs. Dasetti Narasamma and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Rev. Petn. No. 1137 of 1963
Judge
Reported in(1968)ILLJ304AP
ActsProvident Funds Act, 1925 - Sections 5
AppellantKoruprolu Talupulu
RespondentDasetti Narasamma and ors.
Respondent AdvocateN. Srirama Mruty, Adv.
Excerpt:
civil - provident fund - section 5 of provident funds act, 1925 - respondent a nominee of provident fund of deceased - whether amount of provident fund property of deceased or nominee - held, such amount belong to nominee and house constructed out of that amount would be nominee's. - motor vehicles act (59 of 1988)section 149 (2): [v. gopala gowda & jawad rahim, jj] insurers entitlement to defend the action joint appeal by insured and insurer - held, the language employed in enacting sub-section (2) of section 149 appears to be plain and simple and there is no ambiguity in it. it shows that when an insurer is impleaded and has been given notice of the case, it is entitled to defend the action only on grounds enumerated in sub-section (2) of section 149 of the act, and no other grounds..........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 thata 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 contructed out of this amount, even then that house does bot being to the deceased. the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

(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 thata 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 contructed 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 wtih it.

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

(3) CJ/DHZ

(4)Revision dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //