J U D G M E N T

The respondents 1 to 3 are the plaintiffs. They have filed a suit in O.S.No.50 of 1997 before the Subordinate Judge, Devakottai, Sivagangai District, against the appellants and respondents 4 to 6, for declaring that the plaintiffs 1 to 3 are the legal heirs of Late Sri.R.M.Chidambaram Chettiar and entitled to receive all the terminal benefits from the first defendant Bank and for a mandatory injunction to pay all the terminal benefits or in the alternatives directing the defendants 1 to 4 jointly and severally to pay the plaintiffs all the aforesaid terminal benefits.

2. The trial Court, after trial, decreed the suit by judgment and decree dated 27.10.2000, directing the defendants 1, 3 to 7 to pay 3/5th share of the plaintiffs in the amount paid under Exs.B13 to B16 along with 6% interest from the date of plaint till payment. Challenging the said judgment and decree, the defendants 1, 5 and 6 as appellants have filed the present appeal.

3(i). The brief facts of the amended plaint are as follows:

The first plaintiff is the wife of Late Sri R.M.Chidambaram Chettiar, Devakottai and the second and third plaintiffs are the daughter and son. The said Chidambaram was working as an Officer of the first defendant Bank at Kandanur Branch. The plaintiffs and the defendants 2, 3 and 4 are residing at Devakottai. The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the said R.M.Chidambaram Chettiar. The said R.M.Chidambaram Chettiar died on 11.05.1996. Immediately on 15.05.1996, the plaintiffs wrote a letter to first defendant's Chairman, Managing Director, General Manager, the Manager of the personnel Department and the Secretary of first defendant stating that R.M.Chidambaram Chettiar died on 11.05.1996 and they are the only legal heirs entitled to receive the terminal benefits. Along with the said letter, the plaintiffs have annexed the Xerox copy of the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai in M.C.No.6 of 1979 as a valid proof of their legal heirship. The third plaintiff received a letter from the Manager of the Personnel Division, dated 24.09.1996. In the said letter, it has been mentioned that the terminal benefits of the above member has been settled in accordance with the nomination filed by him on 24.01.1981. Therefore, the plaintiffs issued a lawyer notice dated 16.12.1996 to the first defendant. For the said notice, the first defendant sent a reply dated 13.01.1997 through their lawyer.

3(ii) As per the information furnished by R.M.Chidambaram Chettiar, his wife is Sundaravalli and the nominees in respect of his gratuity and other benefits are his two sons by name, Ramanathan and Lakshmanan. Hence, the said persons were impleaded as defendants 2, 3 and 4. The Provident Fund and Gratuity Trustee representing the Management, Officers and Employees (award staff) of the Bank of Madura Limited, Central Office, Madurai 2 have been added as 5th, 6th and 7th defendants respectively. According to the plaintiffs, the alleged Sundaravalli is not the wife of Late R.M.Chidambaram Chettiar and the alleged Ramanathan and Lakshmanan are not the legal heirs of Late R.M.Chidambaram Chettiar. The marriage between the first plaintiff and Late R.M.Chidambaram Chettiar is still in existence. The alleged release of the terminal benefits of R.M.Chidambaram Chettiar to Sundaravalli, Ramanathan and Lakshmanan as alleged in the reply dated 13.01.1997 issued by the first defendant is against the law, illegal and against the provisions of Hindu Law and especially against the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 and Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and Central Provident Fund Act. Hence, the suit.

4. The written statement filed by the first defendant reads as follows:

It is admitted by the first defendant that R.M.Chidambaram Chettiar was lastly working at Kandanur Branch, Karaikudi Taluk and he died on 11.05.1996 as alleged in the plaint. The first defendant disbursed the terminal benefits as per the Rules and Regulations of the Bank. It is sub