Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 90
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Pappathiyammal - Appellant
Versus
Jothi & Others - Respondent
S.A. No. 1249 of 2005 & C.M.P. No. 17070 of 2005
Decided On : 28-02-2020
For the Appellant:V. Jeevagiridharan, Advocate. For the Respondents:R2 to R5, S. Jaganathan, Government Advocate (CS).
The central legal point established in the judgment is the validity of adoption under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and entitlement to terminal benefits under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.
Headnote:
Adoption - Legal Heirship - Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Section 11(iii), Section 9(2) - Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 - Rule 45 - [VALIDITY OF ADOPTION UNDER HINDU ADOPTIONS AND MAINTENANCE ACT, 1956, AND ENTITLEMENT TO TERMINAL BENEFITS UNDER TAMIL NADU PENSION RULES, 1978] - [Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Section 11(iii), Section 9(2), Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 - Rule 45]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration as the legal heir of the deceased Ponnusamy, while the first defendant claimed to be the adopted daughter and legal heir of the deceased. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit, and the plaintiff appealed to the second appellate court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first defendant was the adopted daughter and legal heir of the deceased Ponnusamy based on documentary and oral evidence presented. The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove her claim as the legal heir, and no substantial question of law was found to interfere with the lower courts' decisions.
Issues: Validity of adoption under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, entitlement to terminal benefits under Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the lower courts' findings based on the evidence presented, concluding that the first defendant was the legal heir of the deceased Ponnusamy. The court also noted that the plaintiff's failure to plead the first defendant's dis-entitlement as nominee precluded consideration of this issue.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree of the lower courts.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2004 made in A.S.No.22 of 2003 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tirupattur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2003 made in O.S.No.1448 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Vaniyambadi.)
1. This second appeal is directed as against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2004 made in A.S.No.22 of 2003 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tirupattur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2003 made in O.S.No.1448 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif -cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Vaniyambadi.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial Court.
3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows :-
3.1. The suit is filed for declaration declaring that the plaintiff is the legal heir of the deceased Ponnusamy. One Ponnusamy was working in Alangayam Panchayath Union and while he was in service, died on 08.06.1989. The plaintiff is his own sister. The said Ponnusamy did not marry anybody and his parents and another brother were already died. Except the plaintiff, no other legal heir for her deceased brother Ponnusamy. While he was residing at Alangayam, he used to visit the first defendant's house. The first defendant also unmarried. Utilizing the situation, the first defendant extracted all the income from the said Ponnusamy for her family expenses. Thereafter, the said Ponnusamy fell ill and died on 08.06.1989. The plaintiff had done all his last rites of her brother.
3.2. Further the first defendant belonged to some other community and she did not get marry. She was also working in the Thirupattur Co-operative Registrar office. The first defendant amended the service register of the said Ponnusamy and after his death, the first defendant applied legal heir certificate before the Thasildhar, Vaniyambadi, by stating that she was adopted daughter of the said Ponnusamy and obtained legal heir certificate. Thereafter, she sent representation to the authority concern to receive terminal benefits of the said Ponnusamy from the defendants 2 & 3. Hence the suit for declaration declaring that the plaintiff is the legal heir of the deceased Ponnusamy.
4. Resisting the same, the first defendant filed written statement stating that all the averments made in the plaint is false and frivolous. The deceased Ponnusamy was living with the first defendant. In fact, 35 years before, he adopted the first defendant as his daughter. While he fell in ill, the first defendant only had taken care of him and admitted in so many hospitals and treated him. Unfortunately, the treatment failed and he died. In fact, the first defendant had done all his last rites and customs. Initially, the said Ponnusamy entered his mother name as his nominee and after the death of his mother, the first defendant's name had been entered as his nominee in the service register and PF register. After his death, the first defendant and also the plaintiff applied for legal heir certificate. The Thasildhar, Vaniyambadi, conducted detailed enquiry and issued legal heir certificate in favour of the first defendant. The first defendant also received a sum of Rs.1,000/- to meet out the expenditure at the time of performing the last rites of the deceased Ponnusamy. Now only to extract money from the first defendant, the present suit has been filed and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. The second defendant also filed separate written statement stating that one Ponnusamy was working as Peon at Alangayam Panchayat Union and he died on 08.06.1989, while he was in service. After his death, according to the service register, as a nominee, the first defendant received a sum of Rs.1,000/- for the funeral expenses of the deceased Ponnusamy. He nominated the first defendant to receive all his death benefits in the service register. The said Ponnusamy categori
