SANTHANA LAKSHMI AND S JEGADEESWARAN, MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, SANTHANA LAKSHMI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND SANTHI @ CLADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiffs before both the courts below are the appellants before this Court.

(2.) The suit in O.S. No. 265 of 2004 was filed by the plaintiffs for the relief of declaration that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Senthilkumar and also for a permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from releasing the terminal benefits of the deceased Senthilkumar to the second defendant.

(3.) The case of the plaintiffs is that the first plaintiff was married to one Senthilkumar on 10.06.1996 at Kovilpatti as per Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, Senthilkumar was employed as a Police Constable in Anna Nagar Police Station, Chennai. Both the spouses started their family life at Chennai. After serving in different places, in the year 2000, the said Senthilkumar was transferred to Secretariat Colony Police Station and he was allotted with a police quarters. The second plaintiff was born to them on 23.06.1997. While so, on 02.10.2002, Senthilkumar died while he was in service. The last rites were performed by the plaintiffs. Thereafter, the plaintiffs moved their family to Kovilpatti and they have been living there permanently. The plaintiffs have also obtained Legal Heir- ship Certificate to the effect that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Senthilkumar. They made a request to the first defendant, under whom the deceased Senthilkumar was working, for getting the terminal benefits like Death-cum-Retirement Benefit, Pension, Provident Fund and arrears of salary. The first plaintiff also sought for compassionate appointment from the first defendant, since her husband died in harness. The Second defendant is not known to the first plaintiff at all. But the second defendant on the death of the deceased Senthilkumar, demanded the dead body of the deceased Senthilkumar to her. However, the body was handed over to the first plaintiff. It is stated that the deceased Senthilkumar had developed illicit intimacy with the second defendant and begotten children through her. But the first plaintiff asserts that there was no marriage between the deceased Senthilkumar and the second defendant and the second defendant is not the legal heir of the deceased Senthilkumar. However, the second defendant has been standing in the way of the plaintiffs getting the terminal benefits of the deceased Senthilkumar. On 11.10.2003, the first defendant sent a letter to the plaintiffs, wherein, the first defendant asked for a Succession Certificate to be obtained from the Court. The plaintiffs further add that in the presence of elders, there was a compromise entered into on 23.04.2003, between the second defendant and the first plaintiff, wherein, both of them agreed to receive the terminal benefits. On the basis of the compromise, both of them made a request to the first defendant to release the terminal benefits. However, the said request was rejected by the first defendant by letter dated 11.10.2003. It is also stated by the plaintiffs that the request made by the plaintiffs repeatedly to the first defendant's office to give details with regard to the arrears of terminal benefits, so as to enable the plaintiffs to file appropriate petition before the court of law, were not considered by the first defendant. Therefore, in order to claim the terminal benefits, the above suit was filed by them.