Madras High Court
S.Pitchaiammal vs G.Annammal Alias Santhi on 11 September, 2024
Author: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
Bench: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
S.A(MD)No.816 of 2006
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
S.A(MD)No.816 of 2006
S.Pitchaiammal ... Appellant/Appellant/Plaintiff
Vs.
1.G.Annammal alias Santhi
2.A.Ravi
3.National Highways Department,
Dindigul Division,
Through its,
Divisional Manager.
4.National Highways Department,
Kodaikanal Sub Division,
Through its Assistant Divisional Engineer,
Kodaikanal.
5.The Principal Accountant General,
Office of the Principal Accountant General,
Chennai – 600 0018. ... Respondents/Respondents/Defendants
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure against the judgment and decree, dated 25.11.2005 passed
in A.S.No.5 of 2005, on the file of the Sub Court, Palani, confirming the
judgment and decree dated 20.01.2005 passed in O.S.No.11 of 2000
on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal.
1/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.816 of 2006
For Appellant : Mr.I.Sam Jegan
For R – 4 : Mr.R.Ragavendran
Government Advocate
For R – 5 : Mr.P.Gunasekaran
JUDGMENT
The Judgments and decrees passed in O.S.No.11 of 2000
on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal
and in A.S.No.5 of 2005, on the file of the Sub Court, Palani, are being
challenged in the present Second Appeal.
2.The appellant herein as plaintiff instituted a suit in
O.S.No.11 of 2000 on the file of the trial Court as against the
respondents for the relief of declaration, to declare that the plaintiff is
the legal heir of her husband late.Subramani and for the consequential
injunction not to disburse the pension benefits, D.C.R.G and other
benefits to any person by the defendants 3 to 5 except the plaintiff and
for costs.
3.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to
as, as described before the trial Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.The case of the plaintiff is that the marriage between
herself and late.Subramani was held on 17.05.1961 at Kodaikanal,
Subramaniar Kovil, as per the Hindu rites and customs. On
27.07.1962, a male child was born and they were residing at
Anandhagiri 2nd street at Kodaikanal and the child died on 18.08.1965.
Since the husband of the plaintiff was working as a Watchman at the
Highways Department for 20 days in one month, he went to Moolaiyar
and he resides there. Due to his ill health, while in service, the
plaintiff's husband died on 11.10.1999. After his death, the funeral was
conducted by the plaintiff by printing cards on 26.10.1999, since there
were no legal heirs except the plaintiff. But immediately after the death
of the plaintiff's husband, the defendants 1 and 2 claimed that they
were the legal heirs of the deceased Subramani by creating forged
documents and trying to get death benefits from the defendants 3 to 5.
Hence, on 14.10.1999, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the
defendants 3 and 4 and a reply was also given by the defendants 3 and
4. Since the defendants 1 and 2 by creating forged documents are
trying to get the death benefits of the late.Subramani, the plaintiff has
filed the said suit for the abovestated relief.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5.The defendants 1 and 2 had filed a written statement
stating that the alleged marriage was not held between the plaintiff
and the husband of the first defendant and likewise, no male child was
born and died. To the late.Subramani, except the defendants 1 and 2,
there were no other legal heirs. After the death of her husband, the
second defendant, conducted funeral expenses by printing cards and a
sum of Rs.5,000/- was disbursed by the Highways Department for
funeral expenses to them. Thereafter, a sum of Rs.95,000/- was
received by the first defendant. The Tahsildar of Kodaikanal issued a
legal heir certificate stating that the defendants 1 and 2 are the legal
heirs of late.Subramani. Since the Highways Department recognised
the defendants 1 and 2 as legal heirs of late.Subramani, the third
defendant had passed an order for disbursing G.P.F, S.P.F, D.C.R.G and
N.B.F. On 07.04.1996, at Kodaikanal Kurinchi Andavar Kovil, the
marriage was held between late.Subramani and the first defendant.
Due the the marriage, on 07.05.1969, the second defendant Murugan
alias Ravi was born. In the School records, it is mentioned that
R.Subramani is the father of the second defendant and they were
residing at Mooalaiyar. The said late.Subramani in his service register
mentioned the defendants 1 and 2 as his nominees. After the
marriage, late.Subramani with his family resided in a quarters which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
belongs to the Highways Department at Mayladumparai and thereafter,
till the death of late.Subramani, resided in the Inspection bungalow
belonging to the Highways Department at Moolariyar. There is no
husband and wife relationship between the plaintiff and
late.Subramani. The plaintiff already married one Rajamanickam and
they had a daughter by name Vanasundari. In the voter's list and
ration card, the plaintiff's name was shown as the wife of
Rajamanickam and prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
6.The defendants 3 to 5 had filed a written statement
stating that there was no detail regarding the marriage between the
plaintiff and late.Subramani and he has not given any detail with
regard to the plaintiff. The persons stated as legal heirs by the servant
are eligible to get the amount. In Moolaiyar, at Inspection bungalow,
late.Subramani was working as a temporary Watchman. He died on
11.10.1999. Late.Subramani in his nomination form referred the
defendants 1 and 2 as legal heirs. As per Government Rules, the
Highways Department disburses funeral expenses amount and family
benefit fund regarding G.P.F and pension. The defendants 3 to 5 cannot
disburse the amount of their own. Only the nominees appointed by
late.Subramani is entitled. Since the family benefits were disbursed to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the defendants 1 and 2 before filing of the suit, the plaintiff cannot
claim any relief and she is not entitled to get a declaration as prayed
for. Only the leave salary benefits of late.Subramani has been withheld
from disbursing to the defendants 1 and 2. The defendants 1 and 2
have received a sum of Rs.5,000/- on 29.10.1999 and on 24.12.1999,
a sum of Rs.95,000/- and again a sum of Rs.7,267/- on 24.12.1999
from the office of the fourth defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff has no
right to stop the payments. Since the funeral expenses, family benefit
funds and S.P.F have already been disbursed to the defendants 1 and
2, there is no cause of action. As per the nomination of late.Subramani,
the plaintiff is not entitled to get any amount and prayed for dismissal
of the suit.
7.Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, the
plaintiff herself was examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 to P.W.6 were
examined and Exs.A1 to A28 were marked. On the side of the
defendants, the defendants 1 and 2 were examined as D.W.1 and D.W.
2 and one P.Vadivel (Junior Assistant of Highways Department) was
examined as D.W.3 and Exs.B.1 to B.25 were marked.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8.On the basis of the rival pleadings made on either side,
the trial Court, after framing necessary issues and after evaluating both
the oral and documentary evidence, has dismissed the suit.
9.Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree passed by the
trial Court, the plaintiff herein as appellant, had filed an Appeal Suit in
A.S.No.5 of 2005 on the file of the first Appellate Court.
10.The first Appellate Court, after hearing both sides and
upon reappraising the evidence available on record, has dismissed the
appeal and confirmed the Judgment and decree passed by the trial
Court.
11.Challenging the said Judgments and decrees passed by
the Courts below, the present Second Appeal has been preferred at the
instance of the plaintiff as appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12.The appellants have raised the following substantial
questions of law in the Second Appeal:
'1. Whether the nomination made by the
deceased vide Exs.B.23-25 in his service register would
by itself confer the status of legally wedded wife in favour
of the nominee?
2.Whether the Courts below applied the correct
principles relating to standard of proof while rejecting the
case of the plaintiff?'
13.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff
would submit that the Courts below have not considered the
documents viz., marriage invitation card-Ex.A.1, Family card issued by
the Kodaikanal Township for the year 1967-Ex.A.4, Ex.A.8 and Ex.A.23
and other documents would show that the plaintiff is the wife of
late.Subramani; the Courts below failed to appreciate the oral evidence
of P.W.4 and P.W.5, who had attended marriage of the plaintiff and
late.Surbamani; though the plaintiff has proved her case through oral
and documentary evidence, the Courts below have wrongly concluded
that the plaintiff has not proved her case; though the nomination made
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
by a person and the legal heir certificate issued by the Tahsildar
constitute the proof of marital relationship and succession rights, the
Courts below have wrongly taken into consideration; the Courts below
have wrongly concluded that the first defendant is the legally wedded
wife of late.Subramani on the basis of irrelevant records and the Courts
below have failed to consider the proved facts that the first defendant
is a Christian, she married one George in the year 1960 and gave birth
to Presinalammal, baptised her daughter before the Church Parish
Priest and the said Christian marriage was still in existence, there
cannot be any valid marriage between Annammal @ Shanthi and the
said late.Subramani and prayed for allowing the Second Appeal.
14.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4
and 5 reiterated the averments made in the plaint and the appeal and
submitted that the Courts below had rightly dismissed the suit.
15.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 5 and
also perused the records carefully.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16.According to the plaintiff, as per the Hindu rites and
customs, the marriage between herself and late.Subramani was held
on 17.05.1961 at Kodaikanal, Subramaniar Kovil. On 27.07.1962, a
male child was born and they were residing at Anandhagiri 2nd street
at Kodaikanal and the child died on 18.08.1965. Since the husband of
the plaintiff was working as a Watchman at the Highways Department
for 20 days in one month, he went to Moolaiyar and resides there. Due
to his ill health, while in service, the plaintiff's husband died on
11.10.1999. After his death, the funeral was conducted by the plaintiff
by printing cards on 26.10.1999, since there were no legal heirs except
the plaintiff. But immediately after the death of the plaintiff's husband,
the defendants 1 and 2 claimed that they were the legal heirs of the
deceased Subramani by creating forged documents and trying to get
death benefits from the defendants 3 to 5. Hence, on 14.10.1999, the
plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendants 3 and 4 and a reply was
also given by the defendants 3 and 4.
17.The defendants 1 and 2 denied that the alleged
marriage between the plaintiff and the husband of the first defendant
are all false and likewise, the male child was born and died are all
false. To the late.Subramani, except the defendants 1 and 2, there
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
were no other legal heirs. After the death of her husband, the second
defendant, conducted funeral expenses by printing cards and a sum of
Rs.5,000/- was disbursed by the Highways Department for funeral
expenses to them. Thereafter, a sum of Rs.95,000/- was received by
the first defendant. The Tahsildar of Kodaikanal issued a legal heir
certificate stating that the defendants 1 and 2 are the legal heirs of
late.Subramani. Since the Highways Department recognised the
defendants 1 and 2 as legal heirs of late.Subramani, the third
defendant had passed an order for disbursing G.P.F, S.P.F, D.C.R.G and
N.B.F. On 07.04.1996, at Kodaikanal Kurinchi Andavar Kovil, the
marriage was held between late.Subramani and the first defendant.
Due the the marriage, on 07.05.1969, the second defendant Murugan
alias Ravi was born. In the School records, it is mentioned that
R.Subramani is the father of the second defendant and they were
residing at Mooalaiyar. The said late.Subramani in his service register
mentioned the defendants 1 and 2 as his nominees. After the
marriage, late.Subramani with his family resided in quarters which
belonged to the Highways Department at Mayladumparai and
thereafter, till his death, they resided in the Inspection bungalow
belonging to the Highways Department at Moolariyar. There is no
husband and wife relationship between the plaintiff and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
late.Subramani. The plaintiff already married one Rajamanickam and
they had a daughter by name Vanasundari. In the voter's list and
ration card, the plaintiff's name was shown as the wife of
Rajamanickam.
18.According to the defendants 3 to 5, there was no detail
regarding the marriage between the plaintiff and late.Subramani and
he has not given any detail with regard to the plaintiff. The persons
stated as legal heirs by the servant are eligible to get the amount. In
Moolaiyar, at Inspection bungalow, late.Subramani was working as a
temporary Watchman and he died on 11.10.1999. Late.Subramani in
his nomination form referred the defendants 1 and 2 as legal heirs. As
per Government Rules, the Highways Department disbursed funeral
expenses amount and family benefit fund regarding G.P.F and pension.
Only the nominees appointed by late.Subramani is entitled. Only the
leave salary benefits of late.Subramani has been withheld from
disbursing to the defendants 1 and 2. The defendants 1 and 2 have
received a sum of Rs.5,000/- on 29.10.1999 and on 24.12.1999, a
sum of Rs.95,000/- and again a sum of Rs.7,267/- on 24.12.1999 from
the office of the fourth defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff has no right
to stop the payments. Since the funeral expenses, family benefit funds
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and G.P.F have already been disbursed to the defendants 1 and 2,
there is no cause of action.
19.On perusal of the materials available on record, it is
seen that as per the existing and prevailing Rules of the Highways
Department, the service register is the authenticated document to
prove, who are the nominees as the legal heirs. It is to be seen that in
the nomination form, the said late.Subramani has mentioned the
names of the defendants 1 and 2 as his legal heirs, in which the
plaintiff's name is not found and that being the case, when the
late.Subramani recognised the defendants 1 and 2 as his nominees and
he has filled in the nomination form, the Court has to consider the
same and that would confer the status of the legally wedded wife in
favour of the first defendant, as there is no documentary material filed
by the plaintiff to prove that the marriage between herself and the
late.Subramani and she has not produced any material to show that
the wedding was conducted in the Temple or any other witnesses to
prove that she was the legally wedded wife of late.Subramani and the
first question of law is decided against the plaintiff.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
20.The Courts below had considered the aspect that who is
the legally wedded wife of late.Subramani through evidence. It is to be
seen that in the plaintiff's averment, she has stated that she got
married at Subramaniar Kovil, but no document has been produced,
except Ex.A.1, which is a marriage invitation and no other document
has been filed to show that she is the legally wedded wife of
late.Subramani and the plaintiff's contention that she produced ration
card. However, this Court found that the said document is a factual
aspect and other than ration card, no other documents have been filed
to prove that she is the wife of late.Subramani. No answer to show why
she was not residing with the late.Subramani at the time of death,
when the defendants 1 and 2 proved that they have resided in the
quarters provided in the Inspection Bungalow in Moolariyar. The
plaintiff has also not produced sufficient documents to show that she is
the legally wedded wife. Ex.A.3-the death certificate, the name of the
wife is not noted and Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 can be printed on their own
and that will not give any legal right to prove that she is the legally
wedded wife. The Department has also deposed that the said
late.Subramani was working in the Highways Department and his
service register was produced and nomination form was also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
considered by the Courts below and found that the late.Subramani and
the first defendant lived as husband and wife and the second defendant
is their son and they have been made as nominees, after the death of
the late.Subramani, who received the retirement benefits or any other
benefits available to him and the marriage between the first defendant
and the late.Subramani has been proved beyond any doubt by the first
defendant and the plaintiff has not proved any such claim made by her
with appropriate evidences.
21.It is to be seen that P.W.6-Paulraj, in his examination
has deposed that the said late.Subramani married Annammal @
Santhi. Further, he has stated that he has not witnessed the marriage
of Annamal, the Court has come to the conclusion that the defendants
1 and 2 had proved their case that they are the legal heirs of the
late.Subramani and the plaintiff was not in a position to prove her case
beyond doubt.
22.From the above, this Court is of the view that the
Judgments and Decrees of the Courts below are accompanied with
sufficient reasons, in which, this Court does not want to make any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
interference. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law raised are
ordered as against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
23.In the result, the Second Appeal stands dismissed. No
costs.
11.09.2024
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Sub Court,
Palani.
2.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Kodaikanal.
3.The Record Keeper,
V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
ps
Judgment made in
11.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
