Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 3124
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
KRISHNAMMAL — Appellant
Vs.
SARASAM — Respondent
Second Appeal No. 1048 of 2001
Decided on : 11-10-2018
Advocate Appeared:
S. Ramesh, A. Arumugam, J. Gunaseelan Muthiah, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the second wife is not entitled to family pension and other benefits due to the death of the deceased, and the legal heirs should receive a share in the benefits.
Headnote:
Nominee - Family Pension - [Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 57, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 5, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 41 Rule 33] - The court discussed the legal provisions related to family pension, nominee rights, and the status of the second wife. It highlighted the interpretation of the law and its application to the case, emphasizing that the second wife is not entitled to family pension and other benefits due to the death of the deceased.
Fact of the Case:
The suit involved a dispute over the entitlement to retirement benefits and family pension following the death of Ganapathy. The plaintiffs, claiming to be the second wife and children of Ganapathy, sought to restrain the defendants from withdrawing the benefits and to declare the nominations as fraudulent. The defendants denied the allegations and stated that the plaintiffs had no cause of action.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the second wife was not entitled to family pension or other benefits due to the death of Ganapathy. It held that the family pension and other benefits should be distributed among the legal heirs, with the first wife being entitled to the monthly family pension and the accrued amount.
Issues: The issues revolved around the recognition of the second wife, drawing presumptions regarding marriage, the rights of nominees versus beneficiaries, and the entitlement of legal heirs to receive service benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of legal provisions and the application of relevant case law, emphasizing that the second wife was not entitled to family pension and other benefits, and that the legal heirs should receive a share in the benefits due to the death of Ganapathy.
Final Decision: The second appeal was allowed, setting aside the lower court's judgment and modifying the decree to distribute the benefits among the legal heirs, with the first wife entitled to the monthly family pension and the accrued amount. The 4th and 5th respondents were directed to disburse the benefits accordingly.
C.V. Karthikeyan, J.
The 1st to 5th defendants in O.S.No.93 of 1995 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil, are the appellants herein.
2. O.S.No.93 of 1995 had been filed by three plaintiffs, Sarasam and her two children, Rathish and Murugesh against, Krishnammal and her four children, Kayalvizhi, Thanumoorthy, Asha and Govindaraj and also against the State Government, represented by the District Collector, Kanyakumari District, the District Educational Officer, Nagercoil and the Headmaster, Government Higher Secondary School, Ramapuram, Thovalai Village, Kanyakumari District. The suit had been filed seeking permanent injunction restraining the 1st to 5th defendants from withdrawing the Retirement Pension, General Provident Fund and Family Pension, Special Pension and Insurance amount which had accrued to the account of Ganapathy, S/o. Dhanukonar and payable owing to his death and for a declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled for a declaration that the nominations made in this regard are not genuine and have been created fraudulently by collusion and for a mandatory injunction directing the 6th to 8th defendants to pay the amount of retirement benefits of family pension referred in the Will, dated 06.12.1993 to them.
3. In the plaint, it had been stated that the first plaintiff, Sarasm was the wife of Late Ganapathy and the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs, Rathish and Murugesh are their sons. The first defendant, Krishnammal, was also described as a wife of late Ganapathy. The 2nd to 5th defendants were also described as the children of Ganapathy. It had been stated that the first plaintiff was the legally wedded second wife of deceased Ganapathy. The said Ganapathy was working as Teacher in the Government Higher Secondary School, Ramapuram, Thovalai Village, Kanyakumari District at the time of death.
4. It was stated that Ganapathy had executed a Will on 06.12.1993. The immovable properties were allotted to the 1st to 5th defendants. The plaintiffs were declared entitled for his retirement and other benefits. It had been stated that the first plaintiff was however shown as nominee in the Service Register of Ganapathy. It is under these circumstances, the suit had been filed.
5. The 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th defendants filed their written statement. In the written statement, they stated that the 1st plaintiff was not the wife of Ganapathy. They also stated that the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs were not born out of wedlock between Ganapathy and the 1st plaintiff. The defendants denied all the allegations made in the plaint. They stated that the plaintiffs have no cause of action. They stated that the suit has to be dismissed.
6. The 3rd defendant filed a memo adopting the said written statement.
7. The 1st defendant filed an additional written statement. In the additional written statement, it had been stated that the Will not executed voluntarily by Ganapathy. It had been reiterated that the suit should be dismissed.
8. The 8th defendant filed written statement. In the written statement, it had been stated that Ganapathy died when died, and was entitled to family pension. It had been stated that the nomination for Employee Special Fund / Gratuity was made in favour of Kayalvizhi, Thanumoorthy, Asha, Govindaraj and Rathish. The nomination for both the Employee Retirement and Gratuity Fund were made in favour of Kayalvizhi, Thanumoorthy, Asha and Govindaraj. The nomination for Family Pension was made in favour of Kayalvizhi, Thanumoorthy, Asha, Govindaraj. The nomination of Tamil Nadu Family Pension was made in favour of Krishnammal. It was stated that the amounts due on the death of Ganapathy have to be disbursed in accordance with the nominations made.
9. This suit came for consideration before the learned Principal District Munsif on 13.02.1998. It was partly decreed. A first appeal was filed and the judgment was set aside by the appellate Court and the matter was remanded back to the Munsif Court. The suit was then d
