This second appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 06.09.2002 passed in A.S.No.10 of 2000 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Gudiyattam, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 11.10.1999 passed in O.S.No.455 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gudiyattam.

2. Parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

3. Suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that she is the mother of the deceased Naick S. Vijayan, who died in harness on 20.12.1987, while serving in the military, the Union of India and leaving behind the plaintiff and his wife, the first defendant as his legal heirs and accordingly, both the plaintiff and the first defendant are entitled to inherit the rights of the deceased Naick S. Vijayan and accordingly, both the plaintiff and the first defendant being the heirs, are entitled to all the emoluments and benefits, for which, the deceased was entitled at the time of his death and the plaintiff understands that the benefits of Family Pension, Army Group Insurance Funds, A.F.P.P Fund standing in the credit of the deceased, Death cum Gratuity benefits, on the death of the deceased, should devolve in equal shares both upon the plaintiff and the first defendant and even if, there is any nomination by the deceased, it is only to receive the benefits but in law, the benefits should be shared equally amongst the legal heirs and the nominee will not be entitled to in law to the whole of the benefits and the plaintiff understands that the first defendant is corresponding with the other defendants for claiming the benefits exclusively for herself and on coming to know of the same, the plaintiff corresponded with the defendants 2 to 4 and they had directed the plaintiff to produce the various records and in spite of the plaintiff producing the necessary records, no result is forthcoming and hence, the plaintiff issued a notice through her lawyer on 25.02.1998 requesting the defendants 2 to 4 not to make the payments to the first defendant alone and the plaintiff is also an old lady depending on her son for her livelihood and to the said notice, a reply came from the defendants that the family pension is payable to the wife and father and not to the plaintiff and the abovesaid decision of the defendants 2 to 4 seem to be based upon the statement given by the first defendant and thereupon, the plaintiff issued the statutory notice dated 24.01.1990 claiming that she is also entitled to the benefits, on the demise of her son and the defendants did not comply with the demand made under the said notice and hence, the suit for appropriate reliefs.

5. The case of the first defendant, in brief, is that the suit laid by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts and it is true that the plaintiff is the mother of the deceased Vijayan and the deceased married the first defendant on 01.06.1987 and nominated her as his legal heir to estate and family pension and as such, she is entitled for all the death benefits. However, a sum of Rs.37,500/- being the 50% of AGI death benefits has been paid to the plaintiff. The petition sent by the plaintiff was referred to the recruiting organisation for investigation and after investigation, the same has come to be rejected stating that the father of the deceased is alive and the plaintiff has two other earning sons to look after her and her husband and accordingly, the same was communicated to the plaintiff. The first defendant is solely dependent upon the pension and she has no other income for her livelihood and her parents are also very poor and the first defendant reserves her right for filing a suit for partition in respect of the estate of the deceased against the plaintiff and others and the plaintiff is not entitled to get the reliefs sought for and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. The case of the defendants 2 to 4, in brief, is that the suit laid by the plaintiff