THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.60 of 2022
JUDGMENT:
This City Civil Court Appeal is filed against the Judgment and decree dated 25.04.2022 in O.S.No.634 of 2013, passed by the learned III-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
2. O.S.No.634 of 2013 was filed by the plaintiff No.1/husband along with plaintiff No.2/son against the Banks in which his wife Veena Kumari has taken loans and also against the mother of Veena Kumari i.e, defendant No.3 and after her death her legal representatives brought on record i.e, defendants No.4 to 6.
3. The trial Court examined P.Ws.1 & 2 on behalf of the plaintiffs and marked Exs.A1 to A18. The son of defendant No.3 was examined as D.W.1 and marked Exs.B1 to B4 on behalf of defendants.
4. The trial Court after considering the entire oral and documentary evidence, decreed the Suit in favour of plaintiffs and declared them as legal heirs and successors of deceased 2 Veena Kumari under Section 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and stated that they shall inherit all her assets and liabilities shown in the suit schedule property. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the present appeal is preferred by the legal representatives of the defendant No.3, as she died during the pendency of the proceedings.
5. Appellants/defendants No.3 to 6 mainly contended that respondents No.1 & 2/plaintiffs are not entitled for any benefits of deceased Veena Kumari as legal heirs, as their mother T.S.Mahalaxmi was the nominee of the deceased. Their mother/D3 filed O.S.No.4398 of 2008 for injunction against the respondent No.1 and the same was decreed on 03.03.2011, as there was no appeal preferred against it, it became final. The deceased Veena Kumari permitted defendant No.3 as her nominee till her death. Though her name was shown as the nominee prior to her marriage, she has not changed the name of the first plaintiff as nominee, as she has no faith on her husband. The respondent No.1 married another woman after the death of Veena Kumari. The respondents No.1 & 2 earlier filed a suit in O.S.No.1855 of 2013 against their mother and the same was dismissed on contest on 23.10.2018, as the respondents No.1&2 claimed the same relief which was claimed 3 by them in O.S.No.634 of 2013. The citations filed by them in favour of the nominee were not considered by the trial Court. They further stated that the respondent No.2 was examined as P.W.2, but he was never examined. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
6. A simple Suit was filed by the respondents No.1 & 2/plaintiffs to declare them as the legal heirs of the deceased Veena Kumari, but the mother of Veena Kumari contested all the matters and there were several cases between the parties and thus not only relationship between the plaintiffs and defendant No.3 was strange, but there was considerable amount of litigation between the parties, as such it is required for this Court to mention all the details for arriving to proper conclusion.
7. The marriage of plaintiff No.1 with Veena Kumari was performed on 26.04.1992 and they are blessed with a son i.e, plaintiff No.2, but Veena Kumari died intestate on 30.08.2008. He filed her death certificate to show that she died due to acute coronary insufficiency. The deceased Veena Kumari was worked as Assistant Manager in State Bank of Hyderabad. Even prior to 4 her marriage, she was in service, but during her service, she has taken several loans nearly 10 different types of loans as detailed in the plaint. The loans were provided to her under different account numbers. Apart from that she has also taken two housing loans from Chikkadpally Branch of State Bank of Hyderabad. The defendant No.1 is the State Bank of Hyderabad, Chikkadpally and it is working under the Head Office i.e, defendant No.2. In letter dated 29.12.2008, the details of loans taken by her was mentioned and in the letter dated 23.12.2008, details of the housing loans provided to her were mentioned. She has taken housing loan by mortgaging house property bearing No. 3-5-26 at Bharathnagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad and the original documents were deposited with the first defendant Branch and she also deposited 8 National Savings Certificates, Gold and Golden Jubilee Cash Certificates with State Bank of Hyderabad, Ramannapet Branch and raised loan against the said securities, but suddenly she died on 30.08.2008.
8. Plaintiffs stated that as they are lawful legal heirs, they are entitled to her service benefits by way of gratuity of Rs.3,50,000/-, Provident Fund of Rs.24,000/- and Pension @ 5304/- plus D.A applicable to the spouse of Veena Kumari. 5 While she was in service, she subscribed to SBI Life Insurance, as such she is entitled for Rs.10,00,000/- insurance on her death. As she joined in service prior to marriage, she provided her mother as nominee in the records of the Bank and also in the National Savings Certificate. The defendant No.3 along with her two sons and two daughters was running a small hotel and her daughter Veena Kumari was providing financial assistance. The father of Veena Kumari was lastly seen at the time of her marriage in the year 1992 and later his whereabouts were not known. Though, he reliably learnt that he died long back, the defendant No.3 claims that her husband is alive and he is at Bombay. The defendant No.3 and her children gave complaint on the death of Veena Kumari against him in F.I.R.No.711/2008 dated 31.08.2008, but after investigation final report was filed stating that death of Veena Kumari was natural and investigation was closed on 20.12.2008. The defendant No.3 also filed Suit for Perpetual injunction in the name of plaintiff No.2 representing herself as next friend vide O.S.No.4398 of 2008 and a copy of the Judgment dated 03.03.2011 was filed before the Court. The defendant No.3 also filed O.P.No.56 of 2009 to appoint her as natural guardian of plaintiff No.2 and the same was dismissed, but the copy of the said Judgment was 6 not filed. The plaintiff No.2 is residing with the plaintiff No.1 and is studying in Hyderabad Public School, Ramanthpur.
9. When plaintiff No.1 addressed a letter to the defendant No.1 Bank seeking to provide details of the outstanding balance of housing loans, by letter dated 29.12.2009 they stated that outstanding balance in the housing loan account bearing No.52024348568 was Rs.7,29,934.33ps and in the housing loan account No.52024348956 the balance was Rs.25,813.67ps. Plaintiff No.1 also requested the Bank to furnish details of 10 loans, in response they provided the details as on 31.08.2008 by letter dated 23.12.2000. The Bank stated that they have adjusted Rs.10,00,000/- insurance amount against the loan amount and the surplus amount of Rs.1,39,313 was credited to one of the housing loan account. They have also adjusted Rs.84,598.08 ps pertaining to the leave encashment of 96 days to her another housing loan account and stated that legal heirs of Veena Kumari are entitled to receive the National Savings Certificate, Golden Jubilee Cash Certificates and Gold Ornaments. Plaintiff No.1 issued a notice to the Bank on 12.12.2008 intimating them not to disburse the terminal benefits to anyone especially to defendant No.3. In the month of December, 2009 they stated that they will hand over the above 7 certificates to the legal heirs on production of succession certificate and no due certificate from defendant No.1 Branch. The plaintiff No.1 made an application to Tahsildar, Uppal Mandal vide proceedings No. C/17204/2008 dated 03.11.2008 and thus Family Member Certificate was issued by the said office declaring plaintiffs as legal heirs of Veena Kumari who died on 30.08.2008. He also filed copy of the F.I.R, Final report and Post Mortem Report.
10. Plaintiffs further contended that Veena Kumari is the Hindu female died intestate, as such the succession would follow on the basis of Section 15 & 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. As per Entry - 1 of Section 16, they would be the eligible successors of the deceased Veena Kumari and they need not obtain any succession Certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Plaintiffs also filed O.S.No.1917 of 2010, but it was dismissed on 24.04.2013 on the ground that the value of the properties is more than Rs.1,00,000/- and thus Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction. Therefore, requested the Court to declare them as legal heirs and successors of Veena Kumari as per Section 15 & 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. They are only the lawful owners of the assets and liabilities left by the deceased Veena Kumari. 8
11. In the Counter filed by the defendant No.3, she denied all the material allegations and further stated that plaintiff No.1 is the husband and plaintiff No.2 is the son of her daughter Veena Kumari, but she died under suspicious circumstances and her death is unnatural death at very young age, as such she filed F.I.R.No.711 of 2008 dated 31.08.2008. She also filed Suit for injunction as a Grand-mother and next friend of plaintiff No.2 in O.S.No.4398 of 2008 and decree was passed on 03.03.2011 and it became final as no appeal was preferred. During the life time of Veena Kumari, she acquired movable and immovable properties including Life Insurance Policies. The plaintiff No.2 alone is entitled for terminal benefits. The plaintiff No.1/husband is habituated to all bad vices and he killed his wife on 30.08.2008. He is trying to knock away all the properties to deprive plaintiff No.2 who was a minor, as such he issued legal notice to defendants not to make any transaction pertaining to the terminal benefits. When they expressed their inability, as there is no specific Order from the competent Court she filed suit to protect the interest of the plaintiff No.2. She also stated that when plaintiff No.1 filed Suit for declaration in O.S.No.1917 of 2010, it was dismissed on 24.04.2013. She stated that plaintiff No.2 is a minor boy aged about 12 years, his 9 mother died due to physical and mental torture put to her by plaintiff No.1.
12. Admittedly, defendant No.3 is the nominee for all the amounts. The plaintiff No.1 suppressed his first marriage and about the death of his first wife and informed to defendant No.3 that he is unmarried at the time of marriage with the Veena Kumari. Later, she came to know about his first marriage and even after marrying his daughter, he performed another marriage, as such though her daughter mentioned her name as nominee prior to her marriage, she has not altered the name of her husband in the said records, but he approached the Court with an ulterior motive. She also stated that she is aged about 60 years and contesting all the suits filed by the plaintiff No.1 only for the sake of plaintiff No.2 till he became major and she has no evil intention or idea to grab the assets of her daughter. Her endeavor is to protect the minor son and she has no personal interest over the benefits and assets of her daughter and thus requested the Court to decree the Suit in favour of minor son.
13. Perusal of the record shows that defendant No.3 filed complaint against plaintiff No.1 stating that the death of her 10 daughter is not the natural death, but after investigation it was held that she died due to 'acute coronary insufficiency' and it is the natural death. Plaintiffs filed O.S.No.1917 of 2010 for declaration and injunction. In the said Suit the pendency of O.S.No.4398 of 2008 and O.P.No.56 of 2009 were mentioned by him. It was contested by defendant No.3, the said Suit was disposed of on merits, in which it was observed that decree was granted in favour of defendant No.3 in O.S.No.4398 of 2008 and no appeal was preferred, but however the value of the properties from A to D is more than Rs.1,00,000/- and thus the said Court has not pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the Suit and accordingly it was dismissed on 24.04.2013. Plaintiffs filed O.S.No.1855 of 2013 seeking to declare them as owners and successors of the deceased Veena Kumari, but in the said Judgment it was observed that already O.S.No.634 of 2013 was filed before the Court as on the date of filing the said suit and to avoid multiplicity of the Judgments, the said Suit was dismissed on 23.10.2018. The copy of the petition and counter in O.P.No.56 of 2009 is filed, but the Order of the said petition has not been filed before this Court.
14. There is no dispute regarding the fact that plaintiff No.1 is the husband and plaintiff No.2 is the son of Veena Kumari, but 11 she died intestate on 30.08.2008. The plaintiff No.1 in his evidence stated that previously he married one Saritha and after her death, he married Veena Kumari. Whereas, the defendant No.3 stated that he suppressed the said fact and stated that he is unmarried and thus she performed the marriage of her daughter with the plaintiff No.1. Even after his marriage with Veena Kumari, he married another woman, but she has not filed any documents to show that he performed third marriage after his marriage with Veena Kumari. She herself again stated that he performed third marriage after the death of her daughter. If it is so, it cannot be said that it is not legally valid marriage. The plaintiff No.1 stated that previously he worked in defence and getting pension from the said job and presently he is working in a private organization since 1992. He has not given any other details regarding his employment like nature of work, salary, etc. The said suit was filed only to declare him and his son as legal heirs of his wife Veena Kumari. The mother of Veena Kumari mainly contended that her name was mentioned in the Service Records and also in some of the insurance policies as nominee. Even after the marriage, she has not changed her name in view of the conduct of the plaintiff No.1. She further stated that she is much concerned about the welfare of the second plaintiff, as he is the minor aged about 12 12 years and he is entitled for all the benefits of her daughter. At one point of time, she stated that she has no objection for keeping the amount in the name of plaintiff No.2 till he attains the age of majority and plaintiff No.1 can be shown as natural guardian. The trial Court observed that merely because her name was mentioned as nominee, she is not entitled for the terminal benefits or for the said insurance amount as she is the mother of the deceased. The deceased Veena Kumari has husband and son after the marriage who are legal heirs.
15. The defendant No.3 died on 04.08.2021, as such through I.A.No.868 of 2021 in O.S.No.634 of 2013, legal representatives of defendant No.3 were brought on record. They mainly contended that they are entitled for 20% of the assets of the Veena Kumari as their mother contested the litigation and spent so much of amount for the legal expenses. Though, the defendant No.3 filed O.P for declaration to declare her as a guardian and next friend of plaintiff No.2, she was not declared as the guardian, as plaintiff No.1 natural father is alive. The details of the other suits were mentioned in the above paragraphs and need not be repeated again. When the learned Counsel for the defendant No.3 argued that O.S.No.1855 of 2013 is barred by constructive res-judicata under Order 2 rule 2 13 of C.P.C, the trial Court held that merely because the said Suit was dismissed under Order 2 rule 2 of C.P.C., it cannot be said that the present Suit is not maintainable.
16. Admittedly, plaintiffs filed suit for declaration to declare them as legal heirs of Veena Kumari. There is no dispute regarding the fact that plaintiff No.1 is the husband and plaintiff No.2 is the son of Veena Kumari, as such the trial Court considering the evidence on record rightly decreed the Suit in their favour and declared them as legal heirs and successors of Veena Kumari and also held that they shall inherit all the assets and liabilities shown under the suit schedule property. This Court finds no infirmity in the Judgment of the trial Court and it needs no interference.
17. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the Judgment and decree dated 25.04.2022 in O.S.No.634 of 2013, passed by the learned III-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA DATED: 25.04.2023 tri 14 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No. 60 of 2022 DATED: 25.04.2023 TRI