1. In this case, the widow of a deceased employee under the Eastern Bengal Railway applied for letters of administration of the estate of her husband. In her application in para. 3 she stated that there was some provident fund money on account of the service of her husband under the railway company and the widow was the nominee with regard to this money in a declaration duly executed by her husband. The reason for her asking for letters of administration seems to be that the railway company refused to pay her the money without the letters of administration. If so it is wrong. The only thing that can be said with regard to this is that the authorities concerned must observe the provisions of the law as to the payment of the money due on account of the provident fund. Under Section 3, Clause (2), Provident Funds Act (Act 19 of 1925), the money vests in the dependant of the subscriber or depositor and where the dependant is the widow or child of the subscriber or depositor, without being subject to any rights of an assignee under an assignment made before the commencement of the Act. There can, therefore, be no doubt that the widow of the subscriber in the present case was entitled without any deduction to the amount under the provident fund. The only thing which the railway authorities might insist on is the proof of identity and they might have satisfied themselves about the identity of the person claiming otherwise than by insisting upon letters of administration of the estate of the deceased husband. As a matter of fact, it may be that some person other than the widow or child may be entitled to probate of the will or letters of administration of the estate of the deceased with the will annexed and the widow may be entitled to the provident fund money under the provisions of Section 3, Clause (2) of the Act. However, the widow was compelled to apply for letters of administration of the estate of her deceased husband and in Schedule A she put down the amount of the provident fund. At the same time in her affidavit she stated that the assets of the estate left by her husband, exclusive of the items mentioned in Schedule B in which the provident fund money was included, were under the value of Rs. 995. In Schedule B the widow again stated that the provident fund money was made over to the applicant as widow and nominee. It cannot, therefore, be said that this provident fund money was included in the petition as assets left by the deceased, so as to fall within Article 11, Court-fees Act and be liable to probate duty. It was distinctly stated in the petition and the affidavit of the applicant that the money belonged to her. The law also provides that the money would vest in her. Under these circumstances, the learned Judge was quite right in holding that this amount is not liable to probate duty. The appeal, accordingly, stands dismissed with costs three gold mohurs.