L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs in O. S. No. 147/94 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, chittoor. The parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff had a son by name Kishore Kumar. Her other son is the 2nd defendant by name Nedamuni The 1st defendant is the wife of Kishore Kumar. Kishore Kumar was employed as a Sub inspector of Police. While he was working at kodur Police Station, Mehboobnagar district, he died on 14-11-1993 in a mine blast set up by the Naxalites. According to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant was paid rs, 10,000/- towards ex-gratia and she left for her parents place together with her belongings. ( 3 ) THE plaintiff pleaded that ever since the death of her son Kishore Kumar, the 1st defendant developed hostile attitude towards the plaintiff and her family and was trying to knock away the entire benefits that the Government has extended on account of the death of Kishore Kumar under the various Schemes. She filed the suit seeking relief of partition of suit schedule property. The suit a schedule is a landed property admeasuring 70 cents, b schedule is the debt said to have been incurred by the family and the c schedule property comprises of two items of amounts being rs. 21,429/- under A. P. Government Life insurance Policy No. 257587 and rs. 2,70,000/- payable under Group insurance Scheme in deposit with the superintendent of Police, Mehboobnagar. ( 4 ) THE 1st defendant filed a written statement. She admitted the relationship of the parties. However, she claimed that the family held certain other items of landed property. She stated that she has nothing to do with the suit b schedule liability. So far as the amounts specified in c schedule are concerned, it is her case that as per terms of the respective policies, she alone is entitled to be paid the same and the plaintiff has no right to claim any part of the said amounts. It is also stated that the property in c schedule does not constitute an estate of the deceased and as such is not available for partition. Defendant No. 2 remained exparte. Based on the pleadings, that trial Court framed the following issues:1. It is also stated that the property in c schedule does not constitute an estate of the deceased and as such is not available for partition. Defendant No. 2 remained exparte. Based on the pleadings, that trial Court framed the following issues:1. Whether the plaint schedule properties are liable for partition, if so, to what extent? 2. Whether the defendant is not entitled for c Schedule properties as averred in the written statement? 3. To what extent?the plaintiff examined herself as P. W. I and examined P. Ws. 2 to 4 on her behalf. The 1st defendant examined herself as d. W. I and the village Administrative officer was examined as D. W. 2. While the plaintiff filed document Ex. A-1, the 1st defendant filed documents Exs. B-1 and B-2. ( 5 ) DURING the trial of the suit, it emerged that the parties are not at issue as regards a and b schedules of the plaint and the dispute was only as regards amounts in c schedules. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court held that the plaintiff is not entitled for any share in the c schedule amounts and accordingly dismissed the suit. Hence the present appeal. ( 6 ) SRI G. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the plaintiff, submits that the amounts in c schedule became payable under the schemes framed by the Government and though the 1st defendant is the nominee under the Scheme, she cannot have exclusive right over the same either in general principles of law or as per the provisions of the Schemes formulated by the government from time to time. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon ble supreme Court wherein it was held that a nominee who receives the benefit, such as the one in question in this appeal shall receive the same for the benefit of all the successors and mere nomination will not disentide the other legal heirs or successors of their respective shares. ( 7 ) SRI A. V. Sesha Sai, learned counsel for the 1st defendant, on the other hand, submits that the Scheme in question was unique in nature, in that, there was no contribution from the concerned employee and, inasmuch as it does not constitute an estate of the deceased, the benefit arising out of the Scheme is not available for partition. He has also placed reliance upon several provisions, which enable only the widow of the deceased and not others to claim the benefit under the Scheme. ( 8 ) AS observed earlier, in the suit, the only controversy was as to the entitlement to share the amounts referred to in the c schedule. In this appeal also, the learned counsel for the plaintiff stressed the claim of the plaintiff as regards c schedule and for all practical purposes, the claim as regards a and b schedules is given up. Therefore, the only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to share the amounts specified in the c schedule. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for both the parties have placed reliance upon several g. Os. , and Rules in support of their respective contentions. The G. Os. , as well as the Rules are public documents and in fact constitute the relevant provisions of law. Therefore, they are taken into account though they are not marked as documents and in fact constitute the relevant provisions of law. Therefore, they are taken into account though they are not marked as documents by the trial Court. ( 10 ) LATE Kishore Kumar, who is the son of the plaintiff and the husband of the 1st defendant, was employed as the Sub inspector of Police in the Government of andhra Pradesh. On account of imminent threat to the lives of the Police personnel, the government had formulated the Scheme providing for payment of compensation as well as extension of several benefits to the affected families. G. O. Ms. No. 694 Home (Police C) Department dated 30-4-1971 is the earliest one. Under this G. O. , the government decided to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the families of the Police personnel killed in the course of performance of their duties. The compensation was also provided for those injured in such actions. Clause 5 of this G. O. defined family as under :"5, For the purpose of this order, the family will include: (a) Wife in the case of a male officer, (b) Husband in the case of a female officer, (c) Minor sons and unmarried daughters, mother and father. " later on, the Government issued g. O. Ms. No. 133 Home (Police A) department dated 5-4-1988. " later on, the Government issued g. O. Ms. No. 133 Home (Police A) department dated 5-4-1988. Through this g. O. , the Government framed a Scheme, what is known as "group Personnel accident Policy for Police Personnel" (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) in coordination with the Oriental Insurance company. This Scheme provided for payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the families of sub Inspectors, who died while on duty on account of activities of extremists or such similar causes. Certain other benefits are also referred to in the Scheme, which are not relevant for the purpose of this appeal. The annual premium of Rs. 57/- is payable by the government itself. ( 11 ) IT is not in dispute that late Kishore Kumar was covered by this Scheme and that he died in a mine blast, while in service, on 14-11-1993. The controversy is as to who is entitled for payment of the amounts payable under the Scheme. G. O. Ms. No. 133 is silent as to the definition of family or persons entitled to receive the benefits under the scheme. ( 12 ) THE learned counsel for the plaintiff relies upon the definition of family in g. O. Ms. No. 694 dated 30-4-1971 and claims that inasmuch as the Scheme framed under g. O. Ms. No. 133 dated 5-4-1988 is nothing but an extension of the one framed under g. O. Ms. No. 694 dated 30-4-1971, the definition of family in the latter should be taken as applicable for operating the Scheme under G. O. Ms. No. 131. ( 13 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st defendant submits that the Government had framed the Rules, what are known as "ap. Government Life insurance Fund Rules" (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ) which are general in nature and the procedure prescribed therein should be adopted for the purpose of disbursement of the amounts under the Scheme. He placed reliance upon Rule 32, which reads as under:"32. In all cases, the Director, directorate of Insurances shall have the power to order the payment of surrender value under rule 22 or the amount of the policy or polices together with bonus, if any, to the insured, as soon as possible on his completing the required age, and on surrendering his policy, as the case may be. In all cases, the Director, directorate of Insurances shall have the power to order the payment of surrender value under rule 22 or the amount of the policy or polices together with bonus, if any, to the insured, as soon as possible on his completing the required age, and on surrendering his policy, as the case may be. Payment under this section shall be subject to a deduction of any amount that may be due to Government by the insured on account of the Fund. (a) If the insured dies before receiving the surrender value of attaining the required age, it will be divided between his widow or widows/her widower (in the case of female subscriber) and children in acceptance any request that he/she may in the prescribed form referred to in rule 31; (b) Failing such a request referred to in clause (a), it will be divided between his widow or widows/her widower (in the case of female subscriber) and children equally to the exclusion of adult sons and married daughters whose husbands are alive, any sum due to minor being paid to his guardian for the minors benefit or failing a legal guardian, to any person who in the opinion of the officer, whose duty it is to make payment, is entitled to receive it on behalf of the minor; (c) Failing a widow /widower and children entitled to participate under Clause (a), it will be distributed among other persons in accordance with any request made by the subscriber in the prescribed form; and (d) If no such request has been made it will be paid to the legal representative of the estate as determined by a City Civil Court having competence to pass order in this respect. "it is evident that Rule 32 of the Rules deals with totally different categories of insurances. These are the types of insurances where the insured will be entitled to receive the assured amount if he lives till the date of maturity. In other words, the insured employee is entitled to receive the amounts covered by the category of insurances covered by these Rules. These insurance policies also contemplate the surrender of the value by the insured. These are the types of insurances where the insured will be entitled to receive the assured amount if he lives till the date of maturity. In other words, the insured employee is entitled to receive the amounts covered by the category of insurances covered by these Rules. These insurance policies also contemplate the surrender of the value by the insured. Rule 32 contemplates the situation in respect of those insurance polices where the insured dies before the policy matures, which is commensurate with the date of retirement, or he surrenders the value of the policy. In such contingencies, Rule 32 provides for payment of the same to the widow or children. The mother of the concerned employee does not find a place in such cases. ( 14 ) THE insurance provided for under G. O. Ms. No. 133 is of totally different category. In a way, it is an extension of the one provided for under G. O. Ms. No. 694 dated 30-4-1971. Under these Schemes, the question of the concerned employee receiving the amount during his lifetime or surrounding the same before retirement does not arise. The amounts under these schemes become payable only in the event of the death of the concerned employee. They constitute a different and distinct category. These Schemes are contemplated to rescue the families, which become almost destitute, in the event of the employee being killed in the extremists activities. The parameters of these Schemes are totally different from ordinary insurance Schemes. It is for this reason that under G. O. Ms. No. 694 dated 30-4-1971, which is a precursor to the Scheme framed under g. O. Ms. No. 133 dated 5-4-1988, family has been defined in Clause 5, which is extracted supra. The definition of the family under clause 5 referred to above is not only nearer to the situation, but in fact has to be treated as part of the Scheme framed under g. O. Ms. No. 133 dated 5-4-1988 on account of the similarity of the objects and identity of purposes of those under the two G. Os. Therefore, the plaintiff becomes part of the family as far as this Scheme is concerned. ( 15 ) IN Vishin N. Khancluindanidani v. Vidya Lachmnandas Khanchandani the Supreme court held that in interpreting the polices of the present nature, the paramount consideration should be the object underlying the Scheme. Therefore, the plaintiff becomes part of the family as far as this Scheme is concerned. ( 15 ) IN Vishin N. Khancluindanidani v. Vidya Lachmnandas Khanchandani the Supreme court held that in interpreting the polices of the present nature, the paramount consideration should be the object underlying the Scheme. It was held that even under the Scheme like the National savings Certificate, on the death of the owner of the certificate, the nominee alone does not become entitled to the sum under the certificate to the exclusion of other legal heirs. It was further observed that the nomination in respect of such policies was only to avoid delay and expense in availing the payments and the payments so made to the nominee shall be for the benefit of the legal heirs of the deceased. The object of the policy, in a way, renders the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court applicable to the Scheme in question with a greater vigour. From a social angle also, it cannot be presumed that the Government intended to rescue the wife of the deceased police officer alone leaving the bereaved mother to starve. In a way, the entitlement of the mother is superior from the point of view of affinity to the deceased and her age. Viewed from any angle, the plaintiff cannot be denied of her right to claim part of the benefits under the c schedule, being the Class I heir of the deceased kishore Kumar on account of whose death the said benefits are extended. ( 16 ) IT is also to be noticed that even the definition of the family under the A. P. General Provident Fund Rules, which are made applicable to the Group Insurance schemes, the definition of family includes mother also. The trial Court appears to have been impressed by the fact that the provisions of Section 39 of the Insurance Act are not made applicable to the Insurance schemes in question. It has taken the view that Rule 32 referred to above applies to the facts of the case without appreciating the distinguishing features of the policies governed by the said Rules, on one hand, and those under G. O. Ms. No. 133 dated 5-4-1988, on the other. The trial Court has not at all taken into account the definition of the family under G. O. Ms. No. 133 dated 5-4-1988, on the other. The trial Court has not at all taken into account the definition of the family under G. O. Ms. No. 649 either because its attention was not invited to the same or because it did not feel the same to be relevant. Since it is held that the matter is governed by the definition of family incorporated in clause 5 of G. O. Ms. No. 649 dated 30-4-1971, the plaintiff is entitled for her share in the c schedule amounts. ( 17 ) ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the suit shall stand decreed as prayed for only as regards plaint c schedule property. Having regard to the relationship of the parties, there shall be no order as to costs.