PHILOMENA BALU Vs. COMMANDANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the petitioners in P and SC 70/2007 on the file of XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (Court Hall No.3). The appellants have challenged the order dated 26.2.2011 dismissing their petition filed under section 372 of the Indian Succession Act ('Act' for short). The necessary facts by referring to the parties with respect to their positions in the court below are as follows : -

(2.) The first petitioner is the mother and the second petitioner is the sister of one S.D. Irudayaraj who died on 20.2.2006 in harness under the employment of first respondent. The respondents 3 and 5 are the other sisters and respondent no.4 is the brother of the deceased Irudayaraj. J.S.Sunderraj, the husband of the first petitioner and father of petitioner nos.2, and respondents 3, 4, 5 and the deceased was earlier working under the first respondent and since he died while in service, Irudayaraj was appointed on compassionate ground as an Engraver. The deceased, according to the petitioners, was unmarried and died as a bachelor. At the time of joining the service, the deceased nominated the first petitioner for receiving the service benefits. After death of Irudayaraj, when the first petitioner approached the office of the first respondent for obtaining the survival benefits such as death-cum- retirement benefits, gratuity, GPF, family pension, etc., the trade union leaders did not allow her to meet the first respondent and sent her back stating that the second respondent, i.e., Smt. Violet had already made a claim for the release of survival benefits. Second respondent was not the wife of the deceased. Therefore, the petitioners got issued a notice to the first respondent on 4.4.2006 for releasing the death benefits of Irudayaraj in her favour. The first respondent replied to this notice on 17.4.2006 stating that on 25.2.2004, Irudayaraj had nominated the second respondent by mentioning her as his wife; he had changed the nomination. On further enquiry, the petitioners came to know that the second respondent was working as servant in the officers' quarters of 515 Army Base Workshop, that she had already been married to one Subramanian @ Alexander and that she had already a daughter who is aged 22 years. The petitioners suspected manipulation of the service records of Irudayaraj. They also filed a suit, O.S.4200/2006 against the first respondent restraining them from releasing the said death benefits. Therefore, the petitioners stated that they were entitled to get the service benefits of Irudayaraj as they were his legal representatives and they claimed succession certificate.

(3.) The first respondent filed statement of objections admitting that Irudayaraj was appointed as an Engraver on 12.3.1982 on compassionate grounds and that he had nominated his mother Smt. Philomina, i.e., the first petitioner. They contended specifically that on 25.2.2004, Irudayaraj cancelled the earlier nomination and nominated his wife, i.e., the second respondent in the year 2004. The first respondent denied other allegations made against them in the petition.