The legal heir's entitlement to the deceased's benefits under the Hindu Succession Act, Section 15, is not affected by the dismissal of a previous suit by another party.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and Decree dated 11.10.2007 made in A.S.No.18 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.12.2005 made in O.S.No.239 of 2005 by the Principal District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai.

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2007 passed in A.S.No.18 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Mayiladuthurai confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.12.2005 passed in O.S.No.239 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the rankings in the trial court. The defendants 2 and 3 in O.S.No.239 of 2005 are the appellants in this second appeal.

3. Suit for declaration and mandatory injunction.

4. Briefly stated according to the case of the plaintiff, she is the second wife of the deceased Agoram who died on 13.11.2004. Agoram's first wife T. Sakunthalai was working as Child Welfare Organiser and she died in harness on 13.10.2003 and Agoram was her only legal heir and therefore Agoram sought for the death benefits and other emoluments due to him on the demise of his wife Sakunthalai. He was directed by the authorities to get the legal heirship certificate issued by a court of law. Despite the production of the legal heir ship certificate, the second defendant informed Agoram that Sakunthalai had nominated her brother's son Vasavan to get the benefits, after deleting the name of her husband in the service records. Hence, Agoram filed the suit in O.S.No.265 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sirkali against Vasavan and the second defendant and in the abovesaid suit, Vasavan, the first defendant herein appeared in person and endorsed no objection in the plaint and thereby submitted to the decree. The second defendant had also not filed any written statement. However, the Court had dismissed the abovesaid suit on the footing that the State of Tamilnadu has not been made as a party. After the demise of Sakunthalai, Agoram married the plaintiff on 19.11.2003. After the demise of Agoram, the plaintiff being the legal heir of her husband Agoram, obtained the death benefits of her husband and for obtaining the death benefits of Sakunthalai, the plaintiff sent a requisition letter to the second defendant to disburse the same to her. The second defendant did not respond to the same. Hence after the statutory notice, according to the plaintiff, she has been necessitated to lay the suit against the defendants for appropriate reliefs.

5. The defendants 2 and 3 resisted the plaintiff's suit contending that the plaintiff is not entitled to maintain the suit and admitted that Sakunthalai worked as Child Welfare Organiser in the Panchayath Union and according to them, in the service records, though she had originally nominated her husband Agoram to receive the benefits as her nominee, subsequently on 16.09.2003, appointed her brother's son Vasavan as the nominee and the relief claimed by Agoram with reference to the entitlement of her death benefits in O.S.No.265 of 2004 has been rejected on 23.11.2004. Sakunthalai was not a permanent employee and not entitled to any death benefits and she was entitled only to the insured sum amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-. No other amount is due on her death. The plaintiff has to establish that she is the legal heir of the deceased Sakunthalai. The plaintiff is not entitled to claim the reliefs prayed for and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. In support of the plaintiff's case, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined. Exs.A1 to A29 were marked. On the side of the defendants, no oral and documentary evidence has been adduced.

7. The Courts below on an appreciation of the materials placed on record, both oral and documentary and the submissions putforth by the respective parties, was pleased to grant the reliefs in favour of the pl