Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 19568
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mrs.Justice S.SRIMATHY
VIJAYA – Appellant
Versus
THE GENERAL MANAGER – Respondent
The court affirmed the first plaintiff's rights as the legal spouse in succession matters while clarifying the statutory limitations regarding compassionate appointments.
Headnote:
Property - Succession - Terminal Benefits, Compassionate Appointment - 1-2, 3, 4, 5, 6 - This case examines the legal recognition of marriage, nominee status for terminal benefits, and the limitations on compassionate appointments, resulting in a decision affirming the first plaintiff's right to terminal benefits while denying the claim for compassionate appointment due to time constraints.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed suit claiming entitlement to schedule properties and benefits of the deceased Pakkirisamy, asserting the legitimacy of the first plaintiff's marriage to him, against a backdrop of conflicting claims from the alleged second wife regarding these rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to recognize the first plaintiff as the legal wife of Pakkirisamy, thus entitling her to the terminal benefits, while ruling against the claim for compassionate appointment due to elapsed time since the employee's death.
Issues: Whether the first plaintiff is the legal wife of Pakkirisamy and entitled to terminal benefits, and whether the plaintiffs can claim compassionate appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the first plaintiff's legal marriage and prior nomination by the deceased endorsed her claims, while the compassionate appointment was denied due to statutory time limits post-mortem.
Final Decision: The appeal is partly allowed; the first plaintiff is entitled to terminal benefits but not to compassionate appointment due to time lapse.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed a suit as informa pauperies and for declaring that the second plaintiff is entitled to “A” schedule properties with a consequential relief directing the defendants 1 to 3 to pay “A” schedule property amount to the second plaintiff. Also to declaring that the second plaintiff is entitled to get job on compassionate ground in accordance to her educational qualification, with consequential mandatory injunction directing the defendants to provide job to the 2nd plaintiff. Declaring the 3rd plaintiff is entitled to “B” schedule property and consequentially directing defendants 1 to 3 to pay the “B” schedule property to the 3rd plaintiff. Finally, for declaring that the 1st plaintiff is entitled to “C” schedule property and consequently directing the defendants 1 to 3 to pay “C” schedule property.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the first plaintiff Vijaya is the wife of Pakkirisamy. According to Vijaya the marriage with Pakkirisamy took place in the year 1966 and they are blessed with three daughters namely, Latha (2nd plaintiff), Vanitha (5th defendant) and Sumathi (6th defendant). The 3rd plaintiff is the daughter of the 2nd plaintiff / Latha. In other words, the 3rd plaintiff is the granddaughter of the 1st plaintiff and the Late. Pakkirisamy. The defendants 1 to 3 are the officials of Indian Overseas Bank. The 4th defendant is claiming to be the wife of Pakkirisamy and has set up her claim against the terminal benefits of Late.Pakkirisamy. Hence, the present suit was filed by the plaintiffs with the above stated prayer. The Trial Court had dismissed the suit. The Trial Court has disbelieved the case of the plaintiff Vijaya by relying on the maintenance petition filed by the 4th defendant Vasantha wherein she had claimed maintenance against her husband Pakkirisamy. Further, the Trial Court disbelieved the Will alleged to have executed by the Late.Pakkirisamy in favour of the 3rd plaintiff minor Aparna. Therefore, the entire suit came to be dismissed. Aggrieved over the same, the present First Appeal is filed.
3. Pending first appeal, the 4th defendant Vasantha died. It is seen that the said Vasantha has no children, which is evident from her own deposition before the Trial Court that she is not having any children. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to go into the issue who is the first wife and who is the second wife and their rights. However this Court ought to analyze independently whether Vijaya is the wife of Pakkirisamy.
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submitted that the Late.Pakkirisamy has entered the second plaintiff Latha as his nominee in his service record. This fact has been admitted by the respondents 1 and 3 in their written statement wherein it has been stated as under:
“5. This defendant submits that during 1983 Mr.Packirisamy nominated the 4th defendant Vasantha as his nominee stating that she is his wife. But he had changed the nomination in 1992 by submitting a form dated 26.11.92 in favour of second plaintiff Latha, stating that she is his daughter.”
In fact, Vasantha has also admitted the same while deposing in her written statement wherein she has stated that that deceased Pakkirisamy had become alcoholic that too after his illegitimate relationship with the first plaintiff. But her contention is that under the influence of the alcohol and the first plaintiff, the deceased had nominated second plaintiff Latha as his nominee. Even though there is an admission that it was due to his addiction to alcohol, the fact remains that the second plaintiff was nominated in the service records.
5. The Learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submitted that even if the admitted fact is taken into account, as on the date of filing the suit, the said Latha was 28 years old. Hence, the said Latha would have born in the year 1972. Therefore, it could infer that Vijaya is the wife who was married to Pakkirisamy prior to 1975. After hearing the submiss
