Payment of due amount of deceased to nominee absolutely excluding heirs.

Bellie, J.

1. Defendants 2, 3 and 4 are the appellants in this second appeal. The suit was filed by one Lakshmi and her minor son Suresh. It appears one K. Nagarajan was working as Inspector of Works in Integral Coach Factory, Madras. On 17-5-1983 he died in a motor accident. The first plaintiff is his wife, second plaintiff is his minor son and defendants 3 and 4 are his major sons.

2. According to the plaintiffs, themselves and defendants 3 and 4 being the only legal heirs of K. Nagarajan, they are entitled to receive his Provident Fund amount, Group Insurance amount. Gratuity amount, Death Relief Fund and other amounts standing to the credit of Nagarajan. They came to know that Nagarajan has nominated the second defendant, a widowed sister of his, to receive these amounts. But even though second defendant has been nominated to receive the amount the plaintiffs and defendants 3 and 4, being the legal heirs of Nagarajan, only are entitled to the amounts. While so the second defendant, is taking urgent steps to receive the amount to have it as her own, and if she is paid the amount the plaintiffs will not be able to get the same from her. It is further alleged that since defendants 3 and 4 are not willing to join with the plaintiffs, they have been impleaded as defendants 3 and 4. The General Manager, Claim Settlement Branch, Integral Coach Factory, Madras has been impleaded as the first defendant. The plaintiffs have claimed for a declaration that themselves and defendants 3 and 4 are entitled to the abovesaid amounts standing to the credit of Nagarajan.

3. The first defendant has stated in his written statement that Nagarajan had nominated the second defendant and defendants 3 and 4 to receive his Provident Fund Amount in the proportion of second defendant getting 70% and defendants 3 and 4 getting 15% each. Regarding Railway Insurance amount, Nagarajan has nominated the defendants 3 and 4 and his another widowed sister Meenakshi. Regarding other amounts there is no nomination.

4. The second defendant and defendants 3 and 4 in their common written statement have stated that only they are entitled to receive the amounts. They further stated that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary party viz., Meenakshi who is one of the nominees with regard to Railway Insurance Amount.

5. The Trial Court (XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras) held that only in respect of the provident fund amount and railway insurance amount there are nominations and even with regard to these the nomination is only for the purpose of receiving the amount an the nomination does not give entitlement to the nominee of the amount. So holding it accepted the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs and defendants 3 and 4 only being the legal heirs of the deceased Nagarajan, are entitled to the amount, and it has so declared.

6. Defendants 2,3 and 4 filed an appeal and the first appellate Court (IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras) found no reason to differ from the conclusion of the trial court, and therefore dismissed the appeal.

7. Now, in the second appeal only two questions have been formulated as substantial questions of law arising in the matter. One is that the finding of the lower courts that the nominations are made only to receive the amount and the nominees are not entitled to the money in exclusion of others is not correct. As regards this point, it is not in dispute that there is nominations only in respect of two amounts. In respect of provident fund amount the second defendant and defendants 3 and 4 have been nominated, and in respect of railway insurance amount Meenakshi and defendants 3 and 4 have nominated. There being no nomination with regard to other amounts naturally those amounts must go to the legal heirs of Nagarajan i.e., the plaintiffs and defendants 3 and 4. Now as regards nomination the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court have relied on a Supreme Court decision in "Smt. Subbati Devi and Anr.