J U D G M E N T

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

2. It is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the first appellant Govindammal and the third appellant Meenakshisundaram passed away. The second appellant Sarala and the fifth respondent Shanthi who are already on record are the legal heirs of the first appellant. Jeevanandham who is the son of the deceased third appellant is suo motu impleaded as the fourth appellant.

3. One Murugaiyan @ Murugesan was employed in Bharath Heavy Electricals Ltd., Trichy. He was working as Senior Assistant Grade- II. He passed away on 30.01.1997. There is no dispute that the first plaintiff Govindammal was his legally wedded wife. Through the said wedlock, the second plaintiff Sarala and the third plaintiff Meenakshisundaram and the fifth defendant Shanthi were born. Murugaiyan @ Murugesan also had relationship with one Sarasu, the second defendant. Sarasu claimed that she is the second wife of Murugaiyan @ Murugesan. There is no dispute that defendants 3 and 4 were born to Murugaiyan @ Murugesan through Sarasu. Murugaiyan @ Murugesan had nominated Sarasu as the person to receive his terminal benefits. Apprehending that they will be left penniless, Govindammal and her children filed O.S.No.355 of 1997 before the District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli, for declaration that they are only the legal heirs of the deceased and for permanent injunction restraining the employer from disbursing the terminal benefits. The first plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.16. The second defendant Sarasu examined herself as D.W.1 and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.19 were marked. The learned trial Judge by judgment and decree dated

10.08.1999 decreed the suit as prayed for.

4. Aggrieved by the same, the contesting defendants filed A.S.No.175 of 1999 before the Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli. The first appellate Court by judgment and decree dated 29.09.2003 substantially confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and found that Govindammal was the legally wedded wife of Murugaiyan @ Murugesan. Since defendants 3 and 4 were also born to Murugaiyan @ Murugesan, the first appellate Court further held that they are also entitled to the estate of the deceased. However, in view of nomination of Sarasu as the person to receive the terminal benefits, the employer was directed to hand over the terminal benefits to her. In turn, Sarasu was mandated to divide the estate and hand over the same to the respective sharers/legal heirs.

Aggrieved by this direction, this second appeal has been filed.

5. The second appeal has not been admitted at all. Notice of motion was ordered. In the meanwhile, the first appellant Govindammal had passed away. She is said to have died intestate.

Therefore, her share will devolve on her son Meenakshisundaram and daughters Sarala and Shanthi. Meenakshisundaram had also died. His share will devolve on his son Jeevanandham/fourth appellant.

6. Sarasu/first respondent is still alive. It is trite law that only the family members can be nominated to receive the service benefits. Sarasu could not have been shown as a nominee. She is not the legally wedded wife of the deceased Murugaiyan @ Murugesan. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court is modified in the following terms by taking note of the subsequent developments:-

The terminal benefits of the deceased employee are said to have been deposited by the employer to the credit of the appeal. Obviously the first appellate Court must have re- deposited the same in an interest bearing account in a nationalised bank. The first appellate Court will divide the amount presently available in the said account into six shares. Since Govindammal had passed away, her share will be divided into three and they will be added to the shares of the son and two daughters, namely, Meenakshisundaram, Sarala and Shanthi. Meenakshisundaram is no more. His share will be allotted to his son Jeevanandham/