AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Ravichandrabaabu, J.—This civil revision petition is filed against the order passed by the Court below in rejecting the claim of the
petitioners for disbursement of family pension. The petitioners filed Succession Original Petition in S.O.P. No. 1 of 2010 on the file of the Principal
Subordinate Judge, Salem, for grant of Succession Certificate in pursuance to the death of one Palani. It is stated that the first petitioner is the wife,
second petitioner is his minor daughter and the third petitioner is the mother of the deceased. The Court below granted the succession certificate by
an order dated 26.3.2010. After obtaining the succession certificate, the petitioners approached the very same Court and filed the present
interlocutory application seeking for a direction to the respondents herein to disburse the family pension based on the succession certificate issued
in their favour. The said application was rejected by the Court below even before numbering the same, on the ground that they have to approach
the civil Court seeking for a declaration of their status to claim the family pension as it is admitted by them that the deceased Palani married one
Palaniammal already and got divorce. Aggrieved against the said order, the present civil revision petition is filed.
Heard Mr. Nalliyappan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the materials placed before this Court. The petitioners have
obtained a succession certificate in S.O.P. No. 1 of 2010 on 26.3.2010. Based on the said succession certificate, they seek for disbursement of
the family pension. My considered view is that the Court below is not the Forum before which, such relief can be sought for. The respondents,
who are shown in the interlocutory application, are the competent authority to decide and disburse the family pension to the legal heirs of the
deceased Palani. It is also stated by the petitioners that the said Palani already married one Palaniammal and after divorce, the said Palaniammal
married another person by name Chandran. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the said Palaniammal is not entitled to receive any benefits
arising out of the death of the said Palani. All these factual contentions have to be gone into only by the competent authorities and if there is any
rival claim, then the parties should be directed to approach the Civil Court to establish their contentions. Thus, the present application filed before
the Court below straightaway is not maintainable apart from the fact that the Court, which has granted the succession certificate, cannot be
approached for disbursement of the family pension, which, in my considered view, is a separate cause of action to be agitated before the separate
authority/Court. Accordingly, I find no merits in the civil revision petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.