Judgment :- Ramakrishnan, J. This appeal comes before us on a reference by P.K. Shamsuddin, J. 2. First respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for realisation of an amount of Rs. 11,050/- with interest and costs from the appellant-defendant. Plaintiff and defendant are respectively the mother and husband of one Gowri, who died on 11-3-1978. At the time of her death, she was a Typist in the Sales-Tax Department and was a subscriber to the Family Benefit Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the scheme') introduced by. The Kerala Government as per G.O. (P) 405/77/Fin. dated 19-10-1977. Gowri died issueless and on her death the Department awarded an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as the amount standing to her credit under the Scheme. The said amount was admittedly received by the defendant. According to the plaintiff, the defendant received the amount misrepresenting that he is the sole legal representative of deceased Gowri. The plaintiff claimed that she is the only legal heir of deceased Gowri entitled to succeed to all the assets left by her including the money due under the Scheme. The defendant resisted the claim stating that the amount due under the Scheme is intended to benefit exclusively the "family" of the subscriber as defined in the Scheme and not to any other legal heir of the subscriber. According to the defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled to the amount, as she is not a member of the "family" of the subscriber as defined in the Scheme. Further it was contended that after the commencement of Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1976 succession is governed by S.15 of the Hindu Succession Act and as such he is the only legal heir entitled to succeed to the assets left by the deceased. 3. The trial court on a consideration of the rival contentions found that the plaintiff-mother is the legal heir entitled to inherit the assets left by deceased Gowri. It also found that the provisions in the Scheme cannot override the general law of inheritance so as to defeat the right of the plaintiff who is the sole legal heir of the deceased to the estate of the deceased. It also found that the provisions in the Scheme cannot override the general law of inheritance so as to defeat the right of the plaintiff who is the sole legal heir of the deceased to the estate of the deceased. The trial court also rejected the contention of the defendant that the amount awarded under the Scheme is intended only to benefit the "family" of the subscriber as defined in the Scheme, to the exclusion of all others including the other legal heirs of the deceased subscriber who do not come within the definition contained in the Scheme. 4. Admittedly, the Scheme in question is one framed by the Government of Kerala in exercise of its executive power and as such non-statutory in character. As per paragraph 2 of the Scheme it is made applicable to all regular employees under the State Government and other classes of employees mentioned therein and is optional. On an employee opting to join the Scheme he/she is bound to make a nomination as provided in Paragraph 5 of the Scheme, the relevant portion of which is in the following terms: Nomination: A subscriber to the scheme should nominate only the members of his family. Family for this purpose will include wife/husband and children of the subscriber. In the case of a subscriber who does not have a family as defined above, at the time of nomination, he may nominate any other person. However, such nomination will become invalid in the event of his acquiring a family. On acquiring family, such a subscriber should make a fresh nomination in favour of his family" Under the Scheme, on the basis of the amount contributed by the employee, the Government also makes a contribution at the rates provided in Schedule I of the Scheme. The Scheme makes elaborate provisions specifying the rate of subscription payable by the different class of employees, the contribution to be paid by the Government, the mode of recovery of subscription and the arrears thereof, disbursement of the amount due under the Scheme on death of the subscriber while in service or otherwise when he ceases to be a member of the service. Paragraph 14 deals with the procedure for disbursement in cases where the subscriber dies while in service after making nomination. Paragraph 17 provides the procedure for the disbursement in cases where the subscriber leaves the service on retirement relief. Paragraph 14 deals with the procedure for disbursement in cases where the subscriber dies while in service after making nomination. Paragraph 17 provides the procedure for the disbursement in cases where the subscriber leaves the service on retirement relief. 5.The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that on the death of the subscriber while In service the members of his family alone are entitled to claim the amount due under the Scheme to the exclusion all of his other heirs. In this connection the counsel has strongly relied upon the definition of the term family already quoted by us and also on clause 'iv' of G.O. (P) 83/78/Fin. dated 16-1-1978 issued in continuation of the G.O. by which the Scheme in question was introduced. Clause 'iv' of the G.O. relied upon by the counsel is in the following terms. (iv) Nomination.--(a) In the G.O. read as first paper above, it was stated that the nomination will be on the same pattern as is available for Provident Fund, D.C.R.G. etc. This aspect has been further examined. As the scheme is meant for the benefit of the family of the subscriber it is considered that only members of the family should be nominated" The further contention of the learned counsel is that since the plaintiff is not a member of the family as defined in the Scheme, she has no right to claim the amount due under the Scheme even if she is a legal heir as per the personal law. The learned counsel has also reiterated the further contention taken in the written statement that after the commencement of Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1976 succession the assets of the deceased is governed by S.15 of the Hindu Succession Act and not! 17 and as per S.15 the appellant is the sole legal heir of the deceased and the plaintiff 1 not a heir of the deceased at all. 6. As already noted the Scheme is not a statutory Scheme. It is anon statutory Cheme established by the Government of Kerala in exercise of its executive power. Very employee on joining the Scheme is bound to make a nomination as provided in Diagraph 5 of the Scheme. Nomination can only be of members of his family as defined The Scheme. As already noted the Scheme is not a statutory Scheme. It is anon statutory Cheme established by the Government of Kerala in exercise of its executive power. Very employee on joining the Scheme is bound to make a nomination as provided in Diagraph 5 of the Scheme. Nomination can only be of members of his family as defined The Scheme. 'Family' for this purpose according to the definition given in paragraph 5 of the Scheme "will in clade wife husband and children of the subscriber". If a subscriber has no family; he can nominate any person he chooses as his nominee. But on acquiring a family, the nomination made earlier would become invalid. A fresh nomination has to be made. Disbursement of amount to nominee is contemplated only in cases where death occurs while the subscriber is in service or before receiving the amount due under the Scheme. Provision in paragraph 14 make that position clear. The provisions in clauses (iv) & (v) of paragraph 14 would indicate that even in cases where there is a nominee, the Scheme contemplates payment of amounts under the Scheme to the legal heirs also. Paragraph 17 provides for disbursement in cases where the subscriber leaves service on retirement/relief. It is further clear from paragraphs 6 and 13 of the Scheme that the amount which ultimately becomes due under the Scheme to a subscriber is the sum total of the monthly subscription paid by him and the proportionate Government contribution. It is money belonging to the subscriber and the contribution made by the Government on the basis of the subscription paid by the subscriber. From the above analysis of the provisions of the Scheme it is fairly evident that during the lifetime of the subscriber he alone is entitled to receive the full amount due under the Scheme. Nominee or nominees are not entitled to get any amount during the lifetime of the subscriber. If that be the true position, on the death of the subscriber before receiving the amount payable under the Scheme, it becomes part of his estate, succession to which is governed by the law of succession applicable to him. Succession opens automatically on the death of the subscriber. If that be the true position, on the death of the subscriber before receiving the amount payable under the Scheme, it becomes part of his estate, succession to which is governed by the law of succession applicable to him. Succession opens automatically on the death of the subscriber. The right of legal heirs so acquired under the law of succession on the death intestate of the subscriber cannot be defeated by any of the provisions in the Scheme in questions which is only a Scheme established by the Government in its executive power. A provision made in a non-statutory Scheme like the one in question even if it has the effect of excluding the legal heirs from claiming right to an asset of the deceased subscriber cannot override the provisions of law governing succession, namely, the Hindu Succession Act, in this case. Supreme Court, while considering the scope and effect of S.39 of the Insurance Act, in the decision reported in Sarbati Devi v. Usha Devi (AIR 1984 SC 346) has held thus: "The summary of the relevant provisions of S.30 establishes clearly that the policy holder continues to hold interest in the policy during his lifetime and the nominee acquires no sort of interest in the policy during the lifetime of the policy holder. If that is so, on the death of the policy holder the amount payable under the policy becomes part of his estate, which is governed by the law of succession applicable to him. Such succession may be testamentary or intestate. There is no warrant for the position that S.39 of the Act operates as third kind of succession, which is styled as a 'statutory testament'. The provision in sub section (6) of S.39 which says that the amount shall be payable to the nominee or nominees does not mean that the amount shall belong to the nominee or nominees. The language of S.39 is not capable of altering the course of succession under law". (Head Note) This Court has also taken the same view about the effect of nomination under S.39 of the Insurance Act in the Full Bench decision reported in Sarojini Amma v. Neelakanta Filial (1960 K.L.T.1319), which was approved by the Supreme Court in Sarbati Devi's case. (Head Note) This Court has also taken the same view about the effect of nomination under S.39 of the Insurance Act in the Full Bench decision reported in Sarojini Amma v. Neelakanta Filial (1960 K.L.T.1319), which was approved by the Supreme Court in Sarbati Devi's case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the same principles are applicable to regulate the rights and liabilities of the nominees and other legal heirs of a deceased subscriber under the Scheme. Applying the above principles, it has to be held that whatever may be the intention of the framers of the Scheme in question, the nominee or nominees who may be a member or all the members of the subscriber's family. As defined in the Scheme can receive payment of the amount due under the Scheme only subject to the rights of all other legal heirs of the subscriber to claim their right to such amount in accordance with the law governing succession. 7 Further, we find it difficult to accept the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the provisions in the Scheme especially the provisions dealing with nomination and the definition of the word "family" would unambiguously make it clear that the intention of the framers of the Scheme is to give benefit of the Scheme exclusively to the members of the family as defined in the Scheme. It has to be remembered that the definition of the word family included in the Scheme is only for the purpose of nomination. It has been so made clear in paragraph 5 itself. There is no express provision in the Scheme constituting the nominee or the members of the family of the subscriber as absolute owners of the amount due under the Scheme. There is also no express provision in the Scheme sufficient to exclude all either heirs other than those included in the family by the definition in the Scheme from claiming rights to such amount. The provision prescribing the procedure for disbursement of the amount to the nominee, namely, paragraph 14 of the Scheme only speaks of 'Payment' to the nominee or nominees. The provision prescribing the procedure for disbursement of the amount to the nominee, namely, paragraph 14 of the Scheme only speaks of 'Payment' to the nominee or nominees. No words have, been used to constitute such nominees as the exclusive owners of the benefit of the Scheme, Further the phraseography used in clauses (iv) & (v) of paragraph 14 would also indicate that it was not the intention of the framers of the Scheme to constitute the nominee or nominees as exclusive owners of the amount found payable to them under the Scheme. A comparison of the relevant provision in S.5 of the Provident Fund Act (XIX of 1925) and S.10(2) & (3) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 would be worthwhile, in this connection. S.5(1) & (2) of the Provident Funds Act, 1925 are in the following terms: "Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or in any disposition, whether testamentary or otherwise, by a subscriber to or depositor in. a Government or Railway Provident Fund of the sum standing to his credit in the Fund, or of any part thereof, where any nomination, duly made in accordance with the rules of the Fund, purports to confer upon any person the right to receive the whole or any part of such sum on the death of the subscriber or depositor occurring before the sum has become payable are before the sum having become payable, has been paid, the said person shall, on the death as aforesaid of the subscriber or depositor, become entitled, to the exclusion of all other persons, to receive such sum or part thereof, as the case may be, unless- (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Succession Act, 1925, or the Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827, any persons, who becomes entitled as aforesaid, may be granted a certificate under the Act, or that Regulation, as the case maybe, entitling him to receive payment of such sum or part, and such certificate shall not be deemed to be invalidated or super-added by any grant to any other persons of probate or letters of administration to the estate of the deceased". Sub-section 2 and 3 of S.10 of the Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 are in the following terms: "(2) Any amount standing to the credit of a member in the Fund or of an exempted employee in a Provident Fund at the time of his death and payable to his nominee under the Scheme or the rules of the provident fund shall, subject to any deduction authorised by the said Scheme or rules, vest in the nominee and shall be free from any debt or other liability incurred by the deceased or the nominee before the death of the member or of the exempted employee. (3) The provisions of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) shall, so for as may be, apply in relation to the family pension or any other amount payable under the Family Pension Scheme and also in relation to any amount payable under the Insurance Scheme as they apply in relation to any amount payable out of the Fund". A 'mere reading of the above provisions contained in the two important social legislations would clearly bring out the insufficiency of the provisions in the Scheme to constitute the nominee/ nominees or the members of the family as defined in the Scheme as absolute owners of the amounts due under the Scheme. In the circumstances, we think that the existing provisions in the Scheme are totally insufficient to constitute the nominee or family of the deceased subscriber as absolute owner of the amount due under the Scheme on his death. We may further observe that if the avowed purpose of the Schemeis as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, namely, to confer the benefit of the Scheme exclusively on the members of the 'family' as defined in the Scheme, it may be necessary to bring necessary legislative enactment or a scheme having statutory force incorporating appropriate provisions to constitute them as absolute owners of the amounts due under the Scheme notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, including the personal laws of inheritance applicable to the various subscribers. 8. 8. The further contention of the appellant that on and after the commencement of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1976,S.17 of the Hindu Succession Act has no application to the parties in this case and that S.15 of the Hindu Succession Act would govern the rights of the parties is also a contention without any merit and has only to be rejected. The repealing Section, namely, S.7 of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1976 does not in any manner interfere with the mode of succession reflected in S.17 of the Hindu Succession Act. The succession to the properties of a Marumakkathayi who dies after the commencement of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1976 will still be governed by S.17 of the Hindu Succession Act only. The reference to Marumakkathayam Law or Aliyasantana Law in S.17 of the Hindu. Succession Act is only to clarify the position that the special provisions contained therein are applicable only to persons who at the time of coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act were governed by the Marumakkathayarn Law or Aliyasantana Law as the case may be. In the circumstances, we reject the said contention also. In the result, we confirm the decree of the court below and dismiss the appeal. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs.