JUDGMENT

The defendant is the appellant herein.

2. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.35 of 2007 before the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli for the relief of recovery of a sum of Rs.33,182.50/- with interest and for partition and separate possession of her half share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds. The trial Court decreed the suit in entirety. The defendant filed an appeal in A.S.No.1 of 2011 before the I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli. The learned District Judge partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the money decree but confirming the partition decree. As against the same, the defendant has filed the present Second Appeal.

3. The plaintiff has contended that she is the mother of one Paramasivan who died intestate on 28.04.2006, leaving behind the plaintiff namely, the mother and the defendant namely the wife as his legal heirs. According to the plaintiff, both the plaintiff and the defendant are entitled to half share in the death benefits of Paramasivan who was working in Tamil Nadu Civil Supply Corporation. The plaintiff had further contended that the defendant has received the entire amount of Rs.65,000/- from Tamil Nadu Civil Supply Corporation by fabricating some documents. Hence, the present suit with a prayer for recovery of the half share of the plaintiff. 4. The plaintiff further contended that the plaint schedule property was owned by her son Paramasivan and on his death, she is entitled to half share in the suit schedule property.

5. The defendant namely the wife of deceased Paramasivan filed a written statement contending that the deceased Paramasivan has left a minor daughter by name, Prathiba and she has not been impleaded in the suit and hence, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The defendant further contended that the plaintiff has given an undertaking letter on 02.06.2006 to Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, giving her consent to the defendant to receive the entire terminal benefits of her deceased husband. Hence, her claim for recovery of half share of the amount is not maintainable.

6. The trial Court arrived at a finding that Exhibit B10, no objection affidavit said to have been executed by the plaintiff has not been proved in accordance with law by the defendant. The trial Court also arrived at a finding that the plaintiff has disputed her signature and the thump impression in Exhibit B10 and hence, the entire burden is upon the defendant to prove the same. The trial Court also found that the plaintiff shall be entitled to half share in the suit schedule properties on the ground that the defendant has not proved the adoption of her alleged minor daughter, Prathiba and hence, the suit is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The trial Court proceeded to grant a decree for recovery of money representing the half share of the plaintiff in the terminal benefits and a decree for partition of the half share of the plaintiff.

7. The defendant filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court. The learned First Appellate Judge reversed the finding with regard to the share in the terminal benefits are concerned, on the ground that the plaintiff is not entitled to a share in the terminal benefits, based upon Rule 50 and 51 of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1976. However, the learned First Appellate Judge concurred with the findings with regard to the partition decree and allowed the appeal in part.

8. The First Appellate Court had carefully considered the plea of non-

joinder of necessary parties also. The First Appellate Court considered Exhibit B11, dated 14.07.2004 which is a Foster Care Agreement to take care of the minor child for a period of two years. An adoption deed has been executed in favour of the defendant on 09.06.2006 under Exhibit B12 in the presence of notary wherein, the defendant has adopted the said minor daughter after the death of her husband. The defendant has filed JJOP.No.23 of 2015 before the I Additional District Court, Madurai, seeking permissi