Court confirms lawful marriage, sons' entitlement, property share decree, provident fund succession rule. Appeal dismissed.

The court confirmed the lawful marriage of Plaintiff No. 1 to the deceased and the entitlement of Plaintiffs Nos. 2 & 3 as sons. It decreed a 1/6th share in joint properties for each party and ruled that the provident fund amount did not vest absolutely in the nominee but was subject to the Law of Succession. The appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiffs were granted their share in the provident fund amount. No costs were awarded for the appeal.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Lawful marriage of Plaintiff No. 1 to deceased Bhanabhai.
2. Entitlement of Plaintiffs Nos. 2 & 3 as sons of the deceased.
3. Share in the joint properties.
4. Entitlement to the provident fund amount under the nomination.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Lawful Marriage of Plaintiff No. 1 to Deceased Bhanabhai:
The court confirmed that Plaintiff No. 1 was lawfully married to the deceased Bhanabhai Malabhai. This conclusion was based on oral evidence and the affidavit of Plaintiff No. 1 (Ex.47), which was also used by Defendant No. 1 to obtain a succession certificate. The learned judge found no contention from the appellant regarding the lawful marriage during the appeal.

2. Entitlement of Plaintiffs Nos. 2 & 3 as Sons of the Deceased:
The court determined that Plaintiffs Nos. 2 & 3 were the sons born to Plaintiff No. 1 during her lawful marriage with the deceased Bhanabhai. This conclusion was drawn from the oral evidence and documentary evidence presented. The learned judge did not find it necessary to discuss further evidence as the appellant did not press this contention.

3. Share in the Joint Properties:
The court decreed that each plaintiff had a 1/6th share in the joint properties described in paragraph 4 of the plaint, along with each defendant. It was further decreed that Defendant No. 1 must render accounts of the amounts recovered under the succession certificate and that Rs. 2500/- collected by Plaintiff No. 1 from Gokul Co-operative Housing Society was also joint family property to be partitioned.

4. Entitlement to the Provident Fund Amount Under the Nomination:
The appellant contended that as per the nomination form filled by the deceased, the provident fund amount should be exclusively received by Defendants Nos. 1 to 3. The court examined Section 10 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and Clause 61 of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952.

Section 10 Analysis:
- Sub-section (1): The provident fund amount is protected from being assigned, charged, or attached under any court decree.
- Sub-section (2): The amount standing to the credit of a member at the time of death vests in the nominee, free from any debt or liability incurred by the deceased or nominee.
- Sub-section (3): Similar protection is extended to family pension amounts.

Clause 61 Analysis:
- Sub-clauses (1) to (6): Outline the process of nomination and modifications, emphasizing that nominations must favor family members if the member has a family.

The court concluded that the term "vest" does not imply absolute ownership by the nominee but rather a limited purpose of collection and distribution. The nominee's role is to collect the amount and give a valid discharge, but the amount remains subject to the Law of Succession.

Reference to Supreme Court and Other Judgments:
The court referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation in F. & V. Merchants Union v. Improvement Trust, Delhi, and Sarbati Devi v. Usha Devi, which clarified that nomination does not confer absolute ownership but a right to collect and discharge. The court rejected the Calcutta High Court's reasoning in Usha v. Smriti, which suggested that the provident fund amount becomes the nominee's asset.

Conclusion:
The court found no substance in the appellant's contention that the provident fund amount should vest absolutely in the nominee. The appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiffs were entitled to their share in the provident fund amount as per the Law of Succession. The court ordered no costs for the appeal considering the nature of the question involved.

---