RAMASUNDARAM Vs. RAKKAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners in O. P. No. 164 of 1983 on the file learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli are the appellants. They filed the petition before the lower court under Sec. 372 of the Indian Succession Act for issue of succession certificate on the death of their father, Pichai who was employed as a scanvanger in the Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Tiruverumbur and who died on June 9, 1983 leaving the petitioners as his only legal heir. The succession certificate was sought for by the petitioners for receiving the family benefit funds due from the above said firm. That application was resisted by the respondents. But according to the petitioners, they are the concubine and illegitimate children of the deceased born through the first respondent. The contention of the respondents is that the first respondent is the wife of the deceased Pichai and that the respondents 2 to 4 are the minor children to Pichai through the first respondent. Further it is the case of the respondents that the deceased Pichai nominated the first respondent as the nominee for receiving the amounts due to him after retirement.

(2.) THE parties went on trial and the trail court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the petition on the ground that the first respondent being the nominee appointed by the deceased Pichai, she alone is entitled to receive the amount due to the deceased employee and that the petition for issue of Succession Certificate is not maintainable. The petitioners have filed the present appeal as against the order of the lower court.

(3.) LEARNED senior Advocate Mr. R. Alagar appearing for the appellants contended that mere nomination of late Pichai in favour of the first respondent does not give a right to get the entire amount and appropriate the same since as per the Hindu Succession Act, the respondents are not at all the legal representatives of late Pichai. In the course of argument, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has not pressed this aspect of the case to say that the respondents are not the legal representative of the deceased Pichai since that is a question of fact learned counsel for the appellants argued with regard to the second aspect of the case, namely, that mere nomination in favour of the first respondent would give right in favour of the respondents only to succeed to the estate of the deceased.