Smt.Puttakalamma @ Puttamma vs Smt.H.G.Nagamani
2022 Latest Caselaw 5579 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 28 T H DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                       BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

            MFA NO.6493 OF 2021 (ISA)

BETWEEN:

Smt Puttakalamma @ Puttamma
W/o Late Gowrisha @ Gowrishankar
Aged about 51 years
R/at Herohalli Villag e
Huliyurdurg a Hob li
Kunigal Taluk
Tumkur District-572123.
                                          ...App ellant
(By Sri Sundaresh .G, Advocate)

AND:

1.   Smt H.G. Nagamani
     D/o Late H.C Gowrishankar
     W/o M.S Kirankumar
     Aged about 33 years

2.   Smt H.G. Nethra
     D/o Late H.C Gowrishankar
     W/o M.S Arunkumar
     Aged about 31 years

3.   Smt H.G. Rathna
     D/o Late H.C. Gowrishankar
     W/o P.S Kallesh
     Aged about 29 years

     No.1 to 3 are residing at
     Suresha Compound
     Behind House of Y.K. Ramaiah
                                  :: 2 ::


     Kuvemp u Nagar
     KRS Agrahara, Kunig al
     Tumkur District-572103.

4.   Division Controller
     K.S.R.T.C Chamarajanag ar
     Division, Chamarajanagar
     571313.                                   ...Respondents

      This MFA is filed under Section 384 of the Indian
Succession Act against the Judgment and decree dated
28.01.2021 p assed in P and SC No.05/2016 on the file
of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunig al, allowing the
petition filed under Section 372 of Indian Succession
Act 1924.

     This MFA coming on for admission this d ay, the
Court delivered the following:

                          JUDGMENT

Heard the appellant's counsel at the time of

admission.

2. The appellant was respondent No.1 in P &

S.C.No.5/2016 on the file of the Principal Civil

Judge and JMFC, Kunigal. Respondents 1 to 3

herein applied for succession certificate after the

death of their father H.C.Gowrishankar, for

claiming benefits like gratuity, provident fund,

family pension, group insurance, earned leave, :: 3 ::

etc., to which their father was entitled being in

service of respondent No.4 herein.

3. The appellant opposed the petition for

succession certificate claiming that she was the

wife of the deceased H.C.Gowrishankar. She also

claimed that the deceased had nominated her to

receive all the benefits. The Court below

dismissed her contentions as she failed to prove

that she was the wife of deceased Gowrishankar;

as also his nominee, and ordered for issuance of

succession certificate in favour of respondents 1 to

3.

4. On perusing the impugned order, it

becomes very clear that the appellant failed to

prove that she was the wife of deceased

Gowrishankar and also his nominee. Respondents

1 to 3 herein produced the documents as per

Exs.P.1 to P.4 and also examined an independent

witness PW2 in support of their case that they :: 4 ::

were the legal heirs of deceased H.C.Gowrishankar

and thus they were entitled to claim the benefits.

5. It appears that the appellant herself

adduced oral evidence and also produced

documents as per Exs.R1 to R12. The evidence

produced by her was not believed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant

submits that the appellant was the nominee of the

deceased and that the respondents 1 to 3 have

falsely claimed to be the legal heirs of the

deceased. According to him, the Court below has

not considered the evidence placed before it by

the appellant.

7. Submission of the appellant's counsel is

difficult to be accepted. There is a clear finding

that the evidence placed by the appellant does not

indicate that she was the wife of the deceased and

that she was nominated by him to claim all the

benefits. There is also a clear finding that :: 5 ::

respondents 1 to 3 are the children of the

deceased H.C.Gowrishankar. The name of the

legally wedded wife of H.C.Gowrishankar is

Lalithamma. In this view, I do not find any

infirmity in the impugned order. If at all the

appellant has got any right to claim share in the

monetary benefits on account of the death of

H.C.Gowrishankar, grant of succession certificate

in favour of respondents 1 to 3 does not bar her

right to approach the appropriate forum to

establish her claim. Therefore I do not find any

merit to admit this appeal. Consequently, appeal

is dismissed.

IA No.1/2021 does not survive for

consideration. It stands disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Kmv/-