Smt Indira Ananthanarayana vs Nil
2022 Latest Caselaw 9463 Kant

                           -1-


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                          BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD

       MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2513/2021 (ISA)

BETWEEN:
SMT INDIRA ANANTHANARAYANA
W/O LATE N. ANANTHANARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS
R/A NO.48-B-2, 7TH B CROSS
KHB SFS, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN
BENGALURU-560064
REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER
SRI ANANTH S S/O LATE SANTHANAM
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
                                           ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAAM PRASAD B S., ADVOCATE)

AND:
NIL
                                         ... RESPONDENT

      THIS MFA FILED U/S 384 OF THE INDIAN
SUCCESSION ACT, AGAINST THE         ORDER DATED.
07.12.2020, PASSED IN P & SC NO.178/2020, ON THE
FILE OF THE VII-ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE     (CCH-19), BENGALURU,    DISMISSING   THE
PETITION U/SEC.372 OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                   -2-


                                JUDGMENT

The appellant has called in question the order

dated 7.12.2020 in P & SC No.178/2020 on the file of

the VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,

Bengaluru [for short, 'the probate Court']. The probate

Court, by the impugned order, has rejected the

appellant's petition under Section 372 of the Indian

Succession Act, 1925.

2. The appellant has filed a petition in P & SC

No.178/2020 for issuance of Succession Certificate to

enable transfer of shares held by Sri N.

Ananthanarayana, which are mentioned in the schedule

to the petition and in the appeal memorandum. The

appellant has asserted that on the demise of her

husband, Sri N. Ananthanarayana, she, being his only

legal heir, has requested M/s. Reliance Industries

Limited for transfer of the shares in her favour, and she

is informed that she must obtain the Succession

Certificate from the competent Court. Therefore, she

has filed the petition for Succession Certificate.

3. The probate Court has rejected the

appellant's request opining that none of the documents

produced by the appellant establish her relationship

with Sri N. Ananthanarayana. The probate Court has

observed that the Death Certificate [Exhibit.P1] does not

mention the name of the appellant, and that while some

of the documents mention the deceased as Sri N.

Ananthanarayana, the other documents mention him as

Sri Narasimhachar Ananthanarayana. The probate

Court has also observed that though the appellant's

Aadhaar Card [Exhibit.P4] mentions the appellant's

name as Smt. Indira Ananthanarayana, the initials of

the deceased are not mentioned.

4. The appellant has filed application [I.A.

No.1/2021] under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 [for short, 'the CPC'] for leave to

produce the communication addressed by the

Government of India, Ministry of Railways regarding

payment of Pension and Death-cum-Retirement

Gratuity to Sri N. Ananthanarayana. In support of this

application, the appellant has stated that during the

proceedings before the probate Court, she could not

have expected that her application would be rejected on

the ground that there is discrepancy in the Death

Certificate or because that the name of her husband is

mentioned without mentioning his initials in some of

the documents. The application must be allowed for

complete decision in the appeal accepting the annexed

documents as permissible under Order XLI Rule 27[1][b]

of CPC, and the appeal decided considering the

relevance and probative value of such documents.

5. The different documents marked in the

probate proceedings demonstrate that, Sri. N.

Ananthanarayana was in employment with the

Railways, and he died on 14.01.1995 at Chennai; on his

demise, the appellant, asserting that she is his wife, has

communicated with M/s. Reliance Industries Limited

through M/s. Karvy Fintech Private Limited for transfer

of the shares; she is informed that the shares held by

Sri N. Ananthanarayana have been transferred to

Investor Education and Protection Fund Authority

[IEPF]; she must obtain Succession Certificate from the

competent Court. The original share certificates have

been marked as Exhibits.

6. The question for consideration is, "whether

the probate Court could have, in the circumstances of the

case, held that the appellant has failed to establish her

relationship with Sri N. Ananthanarayana." This Court

must, for the reasons offered hereafter, opine that the

probate Court could not have held against the

appellant, and the appellant is entitled for the

Succession Certificate as prayed for.

7. It is undisputed that Sri N.

Ananthanarayana was an employee of the Railways. As

required, he has furnished the details nominating his

legal heir for family pension as mentioned in the

Computation of Pension and Death-cum-Retirement

Gratuity dated 10.03.1992, [a document filed along with

the additional documents in I.A. No.1/2021]. This

Court is of the considered opinion that this document

would be beyond dispute. This document establishes

that Sri N. Ananthanarayana has nominated the

appellant for family pension, and she is allowed family

pension at the rate of Rs.2,280/- plus DR [Dearness

Relief] per month upto 31.03.1999 and from 01.04.1999

at the rate of Rs.1,140/- plus DR per month.

8. This document would be conclusive about

the appellant's relationship with the deceased, Sri. N.

Ananthanarayana. Even if the Death Certificate does

not mention the name of the appellant or some of the

records mention the name of the parties a little

differently, these discrepancies cannot undermine the

significance of this document. In the indisputable facts

and the circumstances discussed, this Court must

opine that the appellant has established her

relationship with Sri. N. Ananthanarayana, and she

must necessarily succeed with appropriate directions

being issued for issuance of Succession Certificate in

favour of the appellant for the shares mentioned in the

schedule appended to her petition. Hence the following:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed, and the probate Court's impugned order dated 07.12.2020 in P & SC No.178/2020 is set aside allowing this petition and directing the probate Court to issue Succession Certificate in favour of the appellant for the shares mentioned subject to payment of necessary Court fee and other compliances.

SD/-

JUDGE AN/-