AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.K. Rajan, J.—The Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.136 of 1989.
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.
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 ?
Admittedly, the plaintiff is the mother of Ganesan and the fifth defendant is the wife of the said Ganesan. The first Appellate Court has taken the
view that subsequent to the death of Ganesan, since the fifth defendant had married again, she is not entitled to succeed to any of the amount in the
provident fund. This conclusion of the first Appellate Court is erroneous and not sustainable in law. The widow is entitled to the share in the
husband''s property on the date when the husband died. Her subsequent marriage will not in any way affect this. Therefore, the judgment of the
Courts below are not sustainable and hence, it is set aside. Both the plaintiff and the fifth defendant are entitled to a share in the properties left by
Ganesan on the date of his death.
It is stated that the fifth defendant/appellant herein has received 50% of the Provident Fund amount; therefore, the balance of 50% together with
interest, if any, shall be paid to the plaintiff.
The insurance amount has not been paid to any of them. Therefore, the amount payable by the insurance company shall be paid equally to both
the plaintiff and the fifth defendant, inasmuch as no amount has been paid to any one of them.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the mother of the deceased is not entitled to any property, inasmuch as she has not proved that
she is solely depending upon the son; according to Section 24 of the Hindu Succession Act, unless the plaintiff has proved that she is the
dependent, she is not entitled to succeed to the property. This argument is stated only to be rejected. There is no substance in this argument.
Inasmuch as this appellant has not filed any suit or counter-claim, decree will be drafted only after payment of Court fee by the fifth defendant
for the decree.
With the above observation, the Second Appeal is allowed. Substantial Question of Law is answered in favour of the appellant. No costs.