JANAKI Vs. KILIAMBAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SECOND Appeal No. 1324 of 1989:this appeal has been filed by defendants 1 and 2, who claim to be the wife and son of one Narasinghan, who died on 28. 6. 1984. He met with an accident on 23. 6. 1984 and died on 28. 6. 1984. He was employed as an Assistant (Agricultural Demonstration), in the Office of the Assistant Director (Agriculture), Seed Centre, Cuddalore. The suit has been filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein for a declaration that the plaintiffs and the eight defendant Poongothai are the only legal heirs of the deceased narasinghan and they are entitled to receive the amounts due to the deceased by way of service benefits, provident fund and death-cum-retirement gratuity, pension, etc. The dispute, in short, is between the plaintiffs on the one hand and defendants 1 and 2 on the other. According to the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff was married to Narasinghan somewhere in June, 1946 and the second plaintiff was born to them. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the first defendant was having illicit intimacy with the deceased and he drove the first plaintiff away from the house after he came into contact with the first defendant. Per contra, the case of defendants 1 and 2 is that the plaintiffs are not the legal heirs of deceased Narasinghan and the first defendant got married to him in January, 1948 and she was the only legally wedded wife. It is the case of defendants 1 and 2 that the second defendant was one of the sons born to the first defendant and Narasinghan, and the other children were dead. It is also contended by them that deceased Narasinghan had nominated them to receive the service benefits and in view of the nomination the plaintiffs cannot claim any right to the same.

(2.) THE trial court granted a decree in favour of the plaintiffs as prayed for by them and declared that the plaintiffs and the 8th defendant are the only legal heirs of the deceased Narasinghan. On appeal, the lower appellate court modified the same by holding that besides the plaintiffs the second defendant would also be a legal heir as he is a legitimate son of deceased Narasinghan by virtue of the provisions of Sec. 16 of the Hindu marriage Act, 1955 as amended. Defendants 1 and 2 are aggrieved of the grant of decree in favour of the plaintiffs and they have preferred this appeal. THEre is no memorandum of cross objections at the instance of the plaintiffs.

(3.) AS regards the first defendant the nomination is clearly invalid as she is not a member of the family of the deceased narasinghan. AS she is not the legally wedded wife of the deceased, she cannot claim to be a member of the family.