SUBBAMMAL Vs. SARADAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Who is the wife , Is it the first plaintiff Saradambal or the first defendant Subbammal , out of both, who is the legally wedded wife of the deceased V. Kesavalu (who was employed under the second defendant) entitled to receive the terminal benefits payable on account of death of Kesavalu, is the issue raised in this case.

(2.) The suit had been filed seeking the relief of a) declaration that the plaintiffs, i.e. first plaintiff is the wife and Plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the sons and daughter of the deceased V. Kesavalu, are the legal heirs of the deceased and b) for consequential injunction. 2a. The suit was decreed. Challenging the same, the defendants filed the appeal. The appeal was allowed to be dismissed for default. Later, restoration application was filed along with an application to condone the delay of 379 days in filing the restoration application in C.M.A. No.868 of 2016. This Court thought it fit to decide the issue regarding restoration, subject to the merits involved in the claim. Therefore, the application was heard along with the appeal and after hearing the broad contentions on both sides, this Court felt that there was a arguable case for the defendant, therefore, the delay was condoned and the appeal was ordered to be restored.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on both sides were permitted to peruse the documents which was produced by the second defendant in the suit viz., Railway Department and further arguments were heard on both sides.