JUDGMENT :

T. Raja, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

2. Mr. I. Jayaraj has filed this civil miscellaneous appeal against the judgment and decree dated 18.6.2013 passed in S.O.P. No. 1 of 2008 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Harur, Dharmapuri District.

3. Mr. K. Premkumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the appellant married Soundari on 18.5.89 at the C.S.I. Church, Samiyapuram. They were blessed with two daughters and one son out of the wedlock. She was also appointed as a Teacher in the Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Harur. After entering service, she has nominated the appellant/husband as the only sole nominee to receive the family and other benefits in the event of her death. The service register book of the deceased Soundari also stands testimony to the said fact. While so, the appellant along with his wife late Soundari, their two daughters, namely, Anitha, Kamali and their son Kishore accompanied with mother in law and sister in law went to Velankanni on 26.12.2004. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that unfortunately, the appellant's wife, their three children, mother in law and sister in law were washed away by the tsunami waves. However, the appellant was rescued after one day. The appellant being the husband and also nominated by his wife Soundari in the service record as the sole legal heir, is entitled to receive the service and retiral benefits from the Department as he is the legal nominee. When the legal position stands as above, the appellant's father in law, who is the father of late Soundari, wife of the appellant, wrongly laid a claim by filing a petition in S.O.P. No. 1 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Harur, Dharmapuri District to grant a succession certificate empowering him to get one half of the amount (Rs. 2,35,000/- only) set out in the schedule therein and to grant such other relief, on the ground that the deceased Soundari, at the time of marriage, converted to Christianity and she was professing Christianity and she also died as a Christian, as the parties are governed by the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, the appellant's father in law has to be construed as the legal heir of the deceased Soundari, accordingly, he is also entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased Soundari.

4. Opposing the above prayer, the appellant filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that Soundari was not professing Christianity. On the other hand, the appellant was nominated to receive the family and other benefits in the event of her death and the service register book of the deceased Soundari will further prove that the statement of his father in law is false and it was also stated that so far as the service benefits are concerned, as per the settled legal position, the family pension does not form part of the estate of the deceased, therefore, even if a claim is made on the basis of a Will that someone other than the one who is entitled to it, should be given the same, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Smt. Violet Issaac and others v. Union of India and others, (1991) 1 SCC 725, it is not legally sustainable. Mr. K. Premkumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, referring to yet another judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat through Chief Secretary and others v. Savitri Devi, (1996) 1 SCC 558 pleaded that when the Apex Court was faced with the question whether mother is a dependent, the Apex Court, in the said judgment, has answered clearly that in view of the express definition of the 'family' given under Rule 3 of the Gujarat State Revised Pension Rules, 1950, mother has not been included as a member of the family to claim any family pension from the Government, much less after a maximum period of ten years. On this basis, the Apex Court has further held that only the family members, namely, wife in the case of a male government serv