SAROJAMMA Vs. DIVISIONAL MANAGER LIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal is preferred challenging the judgment and decree dated 09.03.2011 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Mysore, thereby allowing the appeal filed by defendant No. 2 in R.A. No. 593/2010 and dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiff in R.A. No. 528/2010. Appellant is aggrieved by the judgments passed in both the appeals. Appellant - plaintiff is the mother of deceased Ananda Babu who was an employee of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. He met with an accident on 22.03.2003 and died on 25.05.2003 while in service. Defendant No. 2 is the wife of late Ananda Babu daughter-in-law of the plaintiff. The suit O.S. No. 568/2006 was instituted by the appellant, mother-in-law against the daughter-in-law and the LIC of India seeking a declaration that she was entitled for the amount of pension payable upon the death of her son and sought consequential relief of mandatory injunction against the LIC to remit 50% of the amount of pension to her.

(2.) It was her contention that as per the provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, pensionary benefit being property, the plaintiff who was a Class-I heir, was entitled to receive the pension equally along with her daughter-in-law upon the death of her son - Ananda Babu. It was her further case that her husband M.P. Rajanna/father of the deceased had entered into an agreement with the 2nd defendant, wife of the deceased as per the Settlement Deed dated 26.05.2003 after the demise of his son vide Ex. P1 and as per the same, the husband of the plaintiff and the widow of the deceased had both agreed that they would take the pensionary benefit 50% each. It was also agreed that the 2nd defendant would avail a job on compassionate ground from the 1st defendant - LIC.

(3.) Pursuant to the said settlement, the 2nd defendant got a job as 'D' group employee in the LIC at Srirangapatna in Mandya District. However, the 2nd defendant left the matrimonial house and started living separately and was not paying any money towards maintenance of the plaintiff, despite request made in this regard by the plaintiff. Hence, a legal notice was issued calling upon the 1st defendant to pay the pension amount to her. As the defendant failed to comply with the same, the plaintiff instituted the suit.