THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.602 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Nalgonda in S.O.P.No.528 of 2001, dated 03.07.2008, the respondent Nos.1 and 6 have filed the present appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the trial Court.
3. The brief facts of the case, are as under.
The petitioner is mother of late C.J.Kennedy, who was murdered on 30.05.2000 within the jurisdiction of Narketpally Village. Respondent No.1 is the legally wedded wife of late C.J.kennedy, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are his illegitimate children born to respondent No.5-Smt.Yamuna @ Jameema. During his life time, the deceased C.J.kennedy took a policy from respondent No.4 for Rs.5,00,000/-. Though their nomenclature appears as Christians, the parties belong to Scheduled caste, professing Hindu Customs and Religion and governed by Mitakshara School of Law. It is further alleged that, late C.J.Kennedy and the petitioner along with her husband and other children were residing jointly at Nalgonda. He was running business under the name and style of 2 J.M.Enterprises at Meerbagh Colony, Nalgonda dealing in the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, L.P. Gas distribution. Respondent No.1 is the legally wedded wife of late C.J.Kennedy and they had no children. While so, the said late C.J.Kennedy developed illegal intimacy and contact with respondent No.5 w/o Vanarassa Ramakrishna R/o Padmarao Nagar, Secunderabad. It is said that the respondent No.5 married C.J.Kennedy, however, it is not within the knowledge or known to the petitioner. During the said illegal intimacy between them, respondent Nos.2 and 3 were borne to them. During the said period, late C.J.Kennedy has taken the above said policy from respondent No.4 for Rs.5,00,000/- and premiums were paid regularly as per schedule and by the date of his death, the policy was in force. In the policy, late C.J.Kennedy has given the name of respondent No.5 as his nominee to receive the amount under the policy.
It is further averred that the respondent No.5 having developed disgust and hatred towards late C.J.Kennedy, conspired with her husband V.Ramakrishna, and got murdered him on 30.05.2000. Soon after his murder, respondent No.5 absconded, deserting respondent Nos.2 and 3 and taking away many valuable gold and silver ornaments and other household articles with her. Ever since the children are being looked after 3 by their paternal grand father i.e., the father of late C.J.Kennedy and the petitioner. After having been arrested and sent to judicial remand, respondent No.5 got bail and has been residing with her parents at Eluru in West Godavari District. A case in Crime No.50 of 2000 was registered in Narketpally Police Station and after due investigation, police filed charge sheet against the respondent no.5 and four others for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 302, 435, 201, 109 r/w. Sec. 34 IPC, which was registered as SC No.80 of 2001 on the file of Principal District Court, Nalgonda, and in the said case, respondent No.5 was found guilty for the offences under Sec.120-B, 302 r/w. 34 IPC. Taking advantage of her name as nominee in the policy, respondent No.5 making claim for the amount under the policy and when the petitioner represented the respondent No.4, to pay the policy amounts, they informed her that in view of the nomination, they would pay the amount only to respondent No.5, unless there is any such Court order. Since the petitioner is the mother, and respondent No.1 being the legally wedded wife, and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are illegitimate children, they are entitled to claim and receive the amount under the policy and since respondent No.4 is not inclined to follow the legal procedure in payment of the said amounts, the petitioner is compelled to approach the Court. 4 Thus, the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 to 3 are entitled to receive the policy amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with accrued bonus from respondent No.4, out of which, the petitioner is entitled to 1/4th share which comes to Rs.1,25,000/- and proportionate bonus, for which she is seeking a Succession Certificate.
4. Respondent Nos.1 and 6, who are said to be the wife and son of the deceased-C.J.Kennedy filed counter stating that respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5 have no relationship with the deceased. It is further contended by respondent No.1 that she being the wife and respondent No.6 being the adopted son of C.J.Kennedy and the petitioner being mother of the deceased are entitled for grant of Succession Certificate having each 1/3rd share in the amounts, which are payable by respondent No.4 Insurance Company and prayed to issue Succession Certificate accordingly.
5. Respondent No.4 Insurance Company filed counter contending that in view of the nomination of respondent No.5 in the insurance policy, they would pay the amount to her only along with the bonus and other benefits under the policy.
6. Respondent No.5 filed counter denying the allegations made in the petition and contended that the deceased Kennedy 5 during his life time, married her and they lived as man and wife from 1992 to 1994 at Hyderabad and Nalgonda and after his murder, she left for Hyderabad and as the deceased nominated her name in the policy, she alone is entitled to the amount covered by the policy and therefore, herself and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to the share in the estate of late Kennedy along with the petitioner and the respondent No.1.
7. Before the trial Court, on behalf of the petitioner, she was examined as PW.1 and Ex.A1 got marked. On behalf of the respondents, none were examined and no document was marked.
8. The learned Principal District Judge, Nalgonda after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, held that the respondent No.5 is not entitled to any amount covered by policy, however, the petitioner being the mother, respondent No.1 being the wife and respondent Nos.2 and 3 being the children of the deceased C.J.Kennedy are only entitled to the insurance policy amount as claimed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent Nos.1 and 6 have preferred the present appeal.
6
9. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and perused the record.
10. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/respondent Nos.1 and 6 is that the deceased C.J.Kennedy adopted the appellant No.2 at his age of 3 months and they admitted him in a school known as "Johnson Grammer School", Habsiguda, Hyderabad and as such, appellant No.2 is entitled a share in the LIC policy. The learned Judge ought to have seen that the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not place any material on record to show that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are illegitimate children of the deceased and as such, they are not entitled equal share along with the petitioner and respondent No.1. It is further contended that the respondent No.5 is a married woman, having husband by name Ramakrishna. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were said to have been born during the subsistence of the marriage of respondent No.5 with Ramakrishna, as such, it cannot be said that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the illegitimate children of the deceased. Therefore, prayed to allow the appeal setting aside the order passed by the trial Court and to grant succession certificate in favour of the appellant Nos.1 and 2 and 7 respondent No.1 in respect of LIC policy pertaining to late C.J.Kennedy.
11. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/petitioner is that after considering the evidence on record, the learned Judge has rightly held that the petitioner being the mother, respondent No.1 being the wife and respondent Nos.2 and 3 being the children of the deceased C.J.Kennedy are only entitled to the insurance policy amount as claimed by the petitioner. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
12. Perused the evidence available on record. Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the relationship of the petitioner who is mother and respondent No.1 who is the wife of the deceased-C.J.Kennedy. Petitioner was examined as PW.1, has reiterated the petition averments. In support of their case, she filed Ex.A1 certified copy of Judgment in G.W.O.P.No.1020 of 2001 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda.
13. According to the petitioner, the deceased C.J.Kennedy developed illegal intimacy with respondent No.5 Smt.Yamuna @ Jameema, married her, however, it is not within the knowledge or known to the petitioner. During the said illegal intimacy between them, respondent Nos.2 and 3 were borne to them. 8 During the said period late C.J.Kennedy has taken the policy from respondent No.4 for Rs.5,00,000/-. Later she developed hatred towards C.J.Kennedy, conspired with her husband V.Ramakrishna and got murdered him on 30.5.2000, for which a case was registered in crime No.50 of 2000 by the Police, Narketpally and in that case respondent No.5 was found guilty for the offences under Sections 120-B, 302 r/w. 34 IPC.
14. Though the learned counsel for the appellants/ respondent Nos.1 and 6 contended that the deceased and the appellant No.1 adopted the appellant No.2 at his age of 3 months, they did not file any oral or documentary evidence to prove the same. Further it is averred in the petition that soon after the death of late C.J.Kennedy, respondent No.5 absconded by deserting respondent Nos.2 and 3, taken away many valuable gold and silver ornaments and other household articles with her. Petitioner in her evidence stated that after respondent No.5 absconded, she took care of the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
15. Further though it is contended by the appellants that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 were born during the subsistence of the marriage of respondent No.5 with Ramakrishna, as such, it cannot be said that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the illegitimate children of the deceased, they failed to move any 9 application to conduct D.N.A. test to disprove their paternity with the deceased C.J.Kennedy and to prove that they are the children born to Ramakrishna. Further Ex.A1 certified copy of judgment passed by the I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda in GWOP No.1020 of 2001 shows that the petition filed by respondent No.5 for appointment as guardian of the person and property of the minors viz., respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein was dismissed.
16. Coming to the respondent No.6, though it is contended by the respondent No.1 that the respondent No.6 was their adopted son, they did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence to show that the respondent No.6 was adopted by the respondent No.1 and the deceased while he was alive. Thus, the contention of the appellants that the respondent No.6 is the adopted son of the deceased is unsustainable. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly held that the respondent No.5 is not entitled to any amount covered by the insurance policy and the petitioner and respondent No.1 to 3 are only entitled to the insurance policy amount as claimed by the petitioner. Therefore, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the findings of the learned 10 trial Judge. Hence, there are no merits in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and it is liable to be dismissed.
17. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 12.09.2023 PGP