Madras High Court
K.Kalavathi vs / on 3 January, 2019
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 03.01.2019
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Second Appeal No.14 of 2004
1.K.Kalavathi
2.Minor Perumal
3.Minor Pushparaj
4.Minor Bhavani
Minors represented by their mother
and guardian 1st appellant. .. Appellants
/versus/
1.The Hindustan Teleprinters
rep.by its Director,
G.S.T.Road, Guindy,
Chennai 600 032.
2.The Regional Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund
Organization, Royapettah High Road,
Chennai 600 014.
3.Life Insurance Corporation of Inida,
rep.by its Branch Manager,
City Branch XVI, 37 First Main Road,
Adayar, Chennai 600 020.
4.Manimegalai
5.Malarkodi
6.Lilli
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
7.Loganathan
8.Saravanan .. Respondents
Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Civil
Procedure Code against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.255 of
2002 on the file of IV Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai dated
29.04.2003 confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.6408 of
1992 on the file of III Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai.
For Appellants :Mr.A.Shanmugaraj
For Respondents :No Appearance for R1,R2
and R4 to R8
Mr.M.B.Raghavan for R3
---------
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants.
2. The second appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs against the concurrent finding of the Courts below declining to grant the relief of declaration and consequential injunction.
3. Brief facts involved in this case is that one P.N.Krishnan died on 14.07.1990 while serving with the first defendant as Casting http://www.judis.nic.in 3 Operator. The first plaintiff Kalavathy, who is the appellant herein, claims to be the wife of P.N.Krishnan. Alleging that she is the legally wedded wife and plaintiffs 2 to 5 born to her through P.N.Krishnan, they are entitled to get the family benefit fund, gratuity, CPF, DCRC, Service gratuity, Special GPF and Family benefit fund from defendants 1 and 2 besides the insurance money from the third defendant. Whereas the defendants 4 to 8 are attempting to get the benefits with the help of one Kothandam and Jeevaraj both employees under first defendant by creating false records.
4. The suit has been contested by the fourth defendant Manimegalai claiming that she was married to P.N.Krishnan in the year 1965 as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. Defendants 5 to 8 were born through their wedlock. She and her children alone are entitled for the death benefits of P.N.Krishnan.
5. Both the Courts, upon considering the documents relied by the parties, have concurrently held that the marriage of P.N.Krishnan with the fourth defendant Manimegalai was prior in point of time and therefore, the marriage alleged to have taken place between P.N.Krishnan and the first plaintiff Kalavathy on 30.12.1974 is not a valid marriage. http://www.judis.nic.in 4 Hence, the relief of declaration and the prayer for consequential injunction were denied.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that even if the marriage of the first plaintiff was subsequent to the marriage of P.N.Krishnan with the fourth defendant, when there are overwhelming materials to show that the other appellants 2 to 4 were born to P.N.Krishnan through Kalavathy, though they are illlegitimate children, they are entitled for a share in the death benefits of their deceased father P.N.Krishnan along with the defendants 4 to 8. As far as this aspect is concerned, the Courts below have not considered the legitimate right of plaintiffs 2 to 5.
7. To support his submission, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the deceased P.N.Krishnan has nominated the first plaintiff in the Insurance Policy and also named her as dependent in HTL Employees Relief Fund. The Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board identity card [Ex.A3] carriers the photograph of the first plaintiff along with the deceased P.N.Krishnan showing them as husband and wife. This identity card was issued as early as 1980. Though the http://www.judis.nic.in 5 names of the plaintiffs 2 to 5 are not found in the birth certificates, it carry their parents name viz., Krishnan and Kalavathy and the school certificate Ex.A9 and A10 proves the parentage. While so, the legal entitlement of plaintiffs 2 to 5 cannot be deprived. Hence, seeks for moulded relief declaring their shares of plaintiffs 2 to 5 in the death benefits of their deceased father P.N.Krishnan.
8. At the time of admitting the second appeal, this Court has framed the following Substantial Question of Law:
Whether the Courts below are right in dismissing the suit when the first plaintiff had proved that she and the decased P.N.Krishnan lived together for more than 30 years than a presumption arises about the legality of the marriage existing between the two as per rulings reported in 1999 T.N.L.J. 191?
9. No doubt, there are some materials to show that the first plaintiff was living with P.N.Krishnan for more than 30 years. However, though it may lead to a rebuttable presumption of marriage, when a legally solemnized marriage between the fourth defendant with P.N.Krishnan has been established by the fourth defendant through documents and oral evidence, which is prior in point of time, the alleged http://www.judis.nic.in 6 marriage of P.N.Krishnan with the first plaintiff Kalavathy or the continuous co-habitation with P.N.Krishnan for more than 30 years will not legitimise their relationship to seek a declaration that the first plaintiff is a legally wedded wife of P.N.Krishnan. To that extent, the concurrent finding of the Courts below is proper and to be confirmed.
10. As far as the entitlement of the death benefits of P.N.Krishnan are concerned, the prayer in the suit is to restrain the defendants 1 and 2 from disbursing the benefits to the defendants 4 to 8 the death benefits of P.N.Krishnan. Both the Courts have found that the gratuity, group insurance money and HTL Employee Relief Fund were disbursed as per the nomination made by late P.N.Krishnan. Since he has nominated the first plaintiff Kalavathy and 4th defendant Manimegalai to receive HTL Employee Relief Fund, a sum of Rs.5,000/- each was paid to them. Hence, dismissed the suit in toto.
11. Having established that the plaintiffs 2 to 5 are born to P.N.Krishnan through Kalavathy as legal heirs they are also entitled for the benefit accrued on the death of P.N.Krishnan as per Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956. Therefore, this Court is of the view that while http://www.judis.nic.in 7 confirming the concurrent findings of the Courts below regarding the declaratory relief and injunction prayer, the plaintiffs 2 to 5 cannot be left without any relief having born to Krishnan through a relationship which is not legal in the eye of law.
12. If the judgment of the Court below is confirmed without modification, it will be against the spirit of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, the relief has to be granted to the extent that the plaintiffs 2 to 5 are declared as legal heirs of P.N.Krishnan and they are entitled to get the death benefits of P.N.Krishnan along with defendants 4 to 8, if there is no nomination made by P.N.Krishnan during his life time.
13. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.
03.01.2019 To
1.The IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2.The III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. http://www.judis.nic.in 8 Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
ari S.A.No.14 of 2004 http://www.judis.nic.in 9 03.01.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in