SATHIYAVANI Vs. RAMAYEE AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.136 of 1989.

(2.) The suit was filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that she is entitled for the entire amount payable by the Provident Fund authorities, as well as the insurance policy in the name of her son as well the amount in the cotton mill Union, by name Tiruchi Mavatta Panchalai Thozhil Sangam. Plaintiff is the mother of Ganesan, the deceased who was working in a mill in Karur. Fifth defendant is the wife. Ganesan died without any issues, intestate. The moneys were payable to him by the Provident Fund Authorities and from insurance company as the deceased had taken the insurance as well as from the Labour Union. Even before the suit was filed, the fifth defendant was paid 50% of the amount by the Provident Fund authorities. Insurance company has not paid any moneys to the wife or to the mother. Admittedly, the parties are Hindus and therefore, both the plaintiff and the fifth defendant are Class-I heirs. Therefore, even if there is any nomination in favour of either of them, the amount has to be shared by all the heirs of the deceased. The lower Court granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to the sum of Rs.2,675/- payable by the insurance company, that is, the balance amount to the account of the deceased Ganesan. The trial Court found no amount was payable by the Union. Appellate Court has confirmed the decree of the trial Court to the same effect. Against that, the second appeal has been filed.

(3.) The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law: 1) Whether the view taken by the Court below that the appellant is not entitled to any amount from the provident fund and life insurance policy of her deceased husband on the ground that she has remarried, is right ? "