Karnataka High Court
Sindhubai @ Vijayalaxmi And Ors vs The State Through on 20 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1657
RSA No. 200286 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 200286 OF 2021 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
1. SINDHUBAI @ VIJAYALAXMI
W/O NARSIMHACHARYA KATTI,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: BIDDAPUR COLONY,
KALABURAGI-585103.
2. SMT. SHOBHA
D/O NARSIMHACHARYA
AND W/O GOPAL KULKARNI,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
OCC : HOUSEHOLD,
R/O BIDDAPUR COLONY,
KALABURAGI-585103.
3. SANJEEV
Digitally signed S/O NARSIMHACHARYA KATTI,
by SACHIN
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF OCC : PRIVATE SERVICE,
KARNATAKA R/O: BIDDAPUR COLONY,
KALABURAGI-585103.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAMCHANDRA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE THROUGH
ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KALABURAGI-585211.
2. THE DIRECTOR HEALTH
AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1657
RSA No. 200286 of 2021
ANANDRAO CIRCLE,
BENGALURU-500 099.
3. THE ADMINISTRATIVE
MEDICAL OFFICER,
TALUKA GOVERNMENT
GENERAL HOSPITAL,
CHITTAPUR,
DIST: KALABURAGI-585211.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.G.B.YADAV, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CPC,
PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
KALABURAGI, IN R.A.NO.52/2008 DATED 10.11.2020 AND
ALSO JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.251/2016
DATED 26.04.2018 BY THE V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
KALABURAGI AND CONSEQUENTLY THE SUIT OF THE
PLAINTIFFS MAY KINDLY BE DECREED, DECLARING THE RELIEF
SOUGHT BY THE PLAINTIFFS THAT THE NARSIMHACHARAYA
S/O VAMANACHAYRA KATTI IS DEAD ON 3.1.1991, AND
FURTHER RELIEF OF MANDATORY INJUNCTION AGAINST THE
DEFENDANTS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION FOR GIVING
PENSION SERVICE BENEFITS AS PER LAW INFAVOUR OF THE
PLAINTIFFS AND ALLOW THE COSTS THROUGHOUT THE
PROCEEDINGS.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
In this appeal, Appellants/plaintiffs are assailing the
judgment and decree dated 10.11.2020 in R.A.No.52/2018
on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kalaburagi,
confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2018 in
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1657
O.S.No.251/2016 on the file of V Addl. Civil Judge,
Kalaburagi, dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in the
appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and
ranking before the Trial Court.
3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, the plaintiff
No.1 is the wife of Narasimhacharya and plaintiff Nos.2
and 3 are the children of said Narasimhacharya. It is
further stated that the said Narasimhacharya was working
as 'D' Group employee in Government General Hospital at
Chittapur and left the house on 03.01.1991 and thereafter
he did not returned to the house and his whereabouts are
not known to the plaintiffs and accordingly the plaintiffs
have registered FIR in Crime No.92/2003 to know the
whereabouts of said Narasimhacharya, however, the
plaintiffs were unaware about the whereabouts of said
Narasimhacharya and accordingly plaintiffs have filed
O.S.No.251/2016 before the Trial Court seeking relief of
declaration of civil death of said Narasimhacharya.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1657
4. After service of notice, the defendants entered
appearance and filed written statement stating that the
said Narasimhacharya has remained absent from
03.01.1991, however, denied the relationship between the
plaintiffs and said Narasimhacharya and accordingly
sought for dismissal of the suit.
5. The Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings on
record framed the issues for its consideration.
6. In order to establish their case, plaintiffs have
examined three witnesses as PW.1 to PW.3 and marked 10
documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10. Defendants have
examined the employee of defendant No.3 and got marked
05 documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D5.
7. The Trial Court after considering the material on
record, vide judgment and decree dated 26.04.2018,
dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Being aggrieved by the
same, the plaintiffs have preferred appeal in
R.A.No.52/2018 before the First Appellate Court and the
appeal was resisted by the defendants. The First Appellate
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1657
Court after considering the material on record, dismissed
the appeal by judgment and decree dated 10.11.2020 by
confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.251/2016.
Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have
preferred the present second appeal.
8. I have heard Sri Ramchandra K., learned
counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri G.B.Yadav,
High Court Government Pleader for the respondents.
9. It is the submission of the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant that both the courts below
have not properly appreciated the material produced by
the plaintiffs and the lower Appellate Court has not
properly reappreciate the documents produced by the
plaintiffs and therefore sought for interference of this
Court.
10. Per contra, Sri G.B.Yadav, learned HCGP
appearing for the respondents sought to justify the
impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts
below.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1657
11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties as the defendants have raised plea that the
plaintiffs are not related to the said Narasimhacharya and
as such, it is the duty of the plaintiffs to prove their
relationship with said Narasimhacharya. In this regard, the
plaintiffs have produced 10 documents as Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.10 and the Trial court having appreciated the entire
documents, arrived at a conclusion that the name of the
plaintiffs are absent in the documents produced by the
defendants. It is also to be noted that, the service register
produced by the defendants as Ex.D2 and Ex.D3 wherein
the name of the wife of the said Narasimhacharya is
mentioned as Smt.Vijayalakshmi and children name as
Shobha and Vamanacharya, however, the name of the
plaintiffs altogether different and there is discrepancy in
the documents and as such, the plaintiffs have failed to
establish the relationship with said Narasimhacharya.
Accordingly, the plaintiffs have not made out a case to
interfere in this appeal. Hence, I am of the view that no
interference is called for in this appeal and appeal is
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1657
dismissed at the stage of admission itself. It is also to be
noted that the appellant has not made out a case to frame
substantial question of law as required under Section 100
of Code of Civil Procedure. In the result, appeal fails and is
accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SN
