Madras High Court
Govindammal(Died) vs Sarasu on 2 July, 2021
1 S.A.NO.1386 OF 2004
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
S.A.No.1386 of 2004 and
C.M.P.No.10757 of 2004
1. Govindammal(Died)
2. Sarala
3. Meenakshisundaram(Died) ... Appellants/
Respondents 1 to 3/
Plaintiffs
4. Jeevanandham ... 4th Appellant
(4th appellant is brought on record as LR. of the
deceased third appellant Meenakshisundaram
vide Order dated 02.07.2021)
Vs.
1. Sarasu
2. Sekar
3. Meenakshi ... Respondents 1 to 3/
Appellants/
Defendants 2 to 4
4. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.,
Rep. By its Managing Director,
Having Office at
Trichy – 620 014. ... Respondent No.4/
4thRespondent/
1st Defendant
5. Shanthi ... Respondent No.5/
Respondent No.5/
5th Defendant
(2nd appellant and fifth respondent are brought on record as
LRs. of the deceased first appellant Govindammal
vide Order dated 02.07.2021)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
2 S.A.NO.1386 OF 2004
Prayer: Second appeal filed under Section 100 of
C.P.C., to against the Judgment and Decree of the learned I
Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli, dated
29.09.2003 in A.S.No.175 of 1999 modifying the Judgment and
Decree of the learned Principal District Munsif,
Tiruchirappalli, dated 10.08.1999 in O.S.No.355 of 1997.
For Appellants : Mr.G.Sridharan,
for Mr.T.M.Hariharan.
***
JUDGMENT
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3 S.A.NO.1386 OF 2004
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4 S.A.NO.1386 OF 2004
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
5 S.A.NO.1386 OF 2004
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
6 S.A.NO.1386 OF 2004
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/fourth appellant and
paid accordingly. The first appellate Court is directed
to withdraw the entire amount from the account in
question and disburse the amounts to the legal heirs of
the deceased Murugaiyan @ Murugesan as mentioned
above. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible.
7. The second appeal is disposed of on these terms.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
02.07.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
PMU
Note: 1. Issue order copy on 09.07.2021.
2. In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the
copy of the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
7 S.A.NO.1386 OF 2004
To:
1. The I Additional Subordinate Judge,
Tiruchirappalli.
2. The Principal District Munsif,
Tiruchirappalli.
3. The Record Keeper, V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
8 S.A.NO.1386 OF 2004
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
PMU
S.A.No.1386 of 2004
02.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
