Bolla Malathi vs B. Suguna, 2025 INSC 1391 - Nomination - General Provident Fund (Central Service) Rules

General Provident Fund (Central Service) Rules, 1960 - Rules do not provide for auto cancellation but it is also that they provide for the eventuality where the nomination duly filled by the subscriber do not subsist. Upon acquiring family the nomination will become invalid. That being the case, even in view of the fact that the deceased had not made changes to the nomination for GPF, the earlier nomination cannot be held to be valid. (Para 8) [Context: In this case, Supreme Court held that the deceased’s GPF nomination in favor of his mother became invalid upon his marriage, triggering distribution under Rule 33 to eligible family members in equal shares. It set aside the High Court’s order and restored the CAT’s direction, confirming a 50-50 split of the GPF between the wife and mother, with the remaining half to be released to the mother.]

Nomination - Nomination would not lead to the nominee attaining absolute title over the subject property for which such nomination was made - The usual mode of succession is not to be impacted by such nomination. The legal heirs not excluded by virtue of nomination. [Quoted from Shakti Yezdani v. Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar]