benefits, one was Noorjahan @ Banumathi, Badrunnisa, Mustaq, Adakar (since deceased) and the other one is Kursheed Unnisa. While Noorjahan @ Banumathi claimed to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased M.H.A.Khader, Kursheed Unnisa also claimed that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased M.H.A.Khader. In fact, Noorjahan @ Banumathi was the nominee as per the service records of the deceased. The appellant / Union of India represented by its General Manager, Southern Railways, Chennai, directed both the claimants to settle the issue in a competent Civil Court and subsequently, based on the ex parte decree passed in O.S.No.1197 of 1985, the appellant disbursed the terminal benefits to Noorjahan @ Banumathi and her three children namely, Badrunnisa, Mustaq, Adakar (since deceased). Subsequently, ex parte decree was set aside and the suit was contested. In fact the suit filed by Noorjahan @ Banumathi was tried along with the suit in O.S.No.2876 of 1993 filed by Kursheed Unnisa. After full contest, the learned XV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, declared Kursheed Unnisa, as the legally wedded wife of the deceased M.H.A.Khader and no appeal was filed by Noorjahan @ Banumathi who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1197 of 1985 (defendants 1 to 4 in O.S.No.2876 of 1993). On the other hand, the present appellant filed the appeal before the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in A.S.No.205 of 2002 contending that since they had already disbursed the amount due to the deceased M.H.A.Khader in favour of Noorjahan @ Banumathi and her children as per ex parte decree, the trial Court ought not to have directed them to disburse the amount in favour of Kursheed Unnisa. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellant on the ground that the appellant immediately after the setting aside of the ex parte decree in O.S.No.1197 of 1985, should have issued a notice to the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1197 of 1985 to refund the amounts back to them and that in the absence of any such steps being taken by the appellant, they cannot maintain the appeal.
