Karnataka High Court
Smt Arifa W/O B Natraj vs Smt Sharada W/O Lage B.Nataraj on 7 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16277
RSA No. 100170 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
RSA NO. 100170 OF 2022 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SMT. ARIFA W/O. B NATRAJ,
AGE ABOUT: 66 YEARS,
R/O. MOREGALLI, W.NO.24,
COWL BAZAR, BALLARI-583101.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B. S. SANGATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SHARADA W/O. LAGE B. NATARAJ,
AGE ABOUT: 52 YEARS,
C/O. CHENNAMMA W/O. LATE KRISHNA D,
Digitally
signed by
D.NO.22, W.NO.24, MOREGALLI,
VISHAL
VISHAL NINGAPPA
NINGAPPA PATTIHAL
PATTIHAL Date:
COWL BAZAR, BALLARI-583101.
2024.11.13
11:32:57
+0530
2. REVATHI D/O. SHARADA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
C/O. CHENNAMMA W/O. LATE KRISHNA D,
D.NO.22, W.NO.24, MOREGALLI,
COWL BAZAR, BALLARI-583101.
3. PRIYANKA D/O. SHARADA
AGED ABOUT: 35 YEARS,
C/O. CHENNAMMA W/O. LATE KRISHNA D,
D.NO.22, W.NO.24, MOREGALLI,
COWL BAZAR, BALLARI-583101.
4. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
OFFICE OF GTM BHARATH SANCHAR,
NIGAM NIYAMITHA, BALLARI-583101.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GIRISH A. YADWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. M.B. KANAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16277
RSA No. 100170 of 2022
THIS RSA IS FILED U/SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.10.2021 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.15/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, BALLARI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.11.2019, PASSED IN O.S.
NO.370/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, BALLARI, PARTLY DECREEING
THE SUIT FILED FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA)
1. Assailing the concurrent findings of facts
recorded by the Courts below, defendant No.1 is before this
Court in this Regular Second Appeal.
2. Suit for declaration that plaintiff No.1 is the
legally wedded wife of B. Natraj who served as Linemen
cum BSNL Phone Mechanic under defendant No.2. The
marriage between plaintiff No.1 with deceased B. Natraj
took place during August 1996, as per the customs
prevailing in their community. From the wedlock two
children namely plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are born. The said
B. Natraj expired on 20.04.2011 leaving behind plaintiff
Nos.1 to 3 as his legal heirs. It is the case of the plaintiffs,
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16277
that defendant No.1 declared herself as wife of the
deceased B. Natraj and try to claim the death benefits in
her favour. Hence, the suit.
3. On notice, defendants appeared and defendant
Nos.1 and 2 filed written statement inter alia denying that
plaintiff No.1 is the illegally wedded wife of the deceased
B. Nataraj and specifically averred that defendant No.1 is
the legally wedded wife of deceased B. Nataraj and the
name of defendant No.1 is forthcoming as a nominee in the
service records of the deceased B. Nataraj. Further that the
names of her two children namely Naushad @ Babu Raj and
Nasreen are been forthcoming in the service records of
deceased B. Nataraj. Defendant No.2 took the similar plea
as taken by defendant No.1 in her written statement.
4. The trial Court based on the pleadings framed
necessary issues, in order to substantiate the claim of the
plaintiffs, plaintiff No.1 examined herself as PW1, three
witnesses as PWs.2 to 4 and marked documents at Exs.P1
to P15. On the other hand, defendant No.1 examined
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16277
herself as DW1, three witnesses as DWs.2 to 4 and marked
documents at Exs.D1 to D14.
5. The trial court based on the pleadings, oral and
documentary evidence arrived at a conclusion that:
i. Plaintiff No.1 has proved that she is legally
wedded wife of deceased B. Nataraj.
ii. Plaintiffs failed to prove that they are the
only legal heirs of the deceased B. Nataraj.
By the judgment and decree, the trial Court partly
decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 and
Naushad @ Babu Raj and Nasreen are entitled for 1/5th
share in the service benefits of deceased B. Nataraj as per
Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act (herein after referred
to as 'the Act' for short).
7. Feeling aggrieved, defendant No.1 preferred
appeal before the First Appellate Court and feeling
aggrieved, plaintiffs preferred cross-objection insofar as
granting share to the two children of defendant No.1. The
First Appellate Court while re-appreciating the pleadings,
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16277
oral and documentary evidence, independently, dismissed
the appeal preferred by defendant No.1 as well as the
cross-objection filed by the plaintiffs. Aggrieved, defendant
No.1 is before this Court. No appeal is preferred by the
plaintiffs against the rejection of the cross-objection.
9. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/defendant No.1, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents and perused the material on record.
10. The dispute is regarding the monetary benefits of
one B. Nataraj, who died during employment. Plaintiff No.1
claims to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased B.
Nataraj and plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are the children of
deceased B. Nataraj from plaintiff No.1. Defendant No.1 on
the other hand contends that she is legally wedded wife of
B. Nataraj, her name finds place as nominee in the service
records. The plaintiffs in order to substantiate their claim,
plaintiff No.1 examined herself as PW1, three witnesses as
PWs2 to 4 and marked documents at Exs.P1 to P15. Exs.P1
and P2 are the Birth Certificates of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16277
wherein, the name of the father of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 is
indicated as B. Nataraj. The issue No.1 framed by the trial
Court is casting the burden on plaintiff No.1 to prove that
she is the legally wedded wife of deceased B. Nataraj.
11. PW2 and PW3 are the relatives of the plaintiffs
who were examined to prove the existence of relationship
and the means of knowledge of relationship as envisaged
under Section 44 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
PW2 and PW3 categorically deposed regarding the
relationship of the plaintiffs with deceased B. Nataraj.
12. PW4 is another witness who is the Photographer
in profession and he has taken the photos of plaintiff No.1
and the deceased B. Nataraj at the time of their marriage.
13. PW2 to PW4 categorically stated that plaintiff
No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the deceased B. Nataraj
and nothing worthwhile is elicited from the cross-
examination of PW2 to PW4 to disbelieve their version.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16277
14. In order to prove that defendant No.1 is the wife
of the deceased B. Nataraj, defendant No.1 produced
Exs.D1 to D14. Ex.D10 is the Identity Card showing the
family details issued by BSNL, which discloses that the
deceased B. Nataraj has indicated the names of defendant
No.1 and other two names namely Naushad @ Babu and
Nasreen as members of the family. Exs.D7 to D9 are also
the documents which indicate the name of deceased B.
Nataraj. The witnesses examined on behalf of defendant
No.1 are DW2 to DW4 who though say about the marriage
being solemnized between defendant No.1 and B. Nataraj, it
is relevant to state that the witnesses examined are not the
relatives either to deceased B. Nataraj or the relatives of
defendant No.1 who can depose about the knowledge
regarding the existence of relationship between the
deceased B. Nataraj and defendant No.1. When weighed
with the witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiffs and
the witnesses examined on behalf of defendant No.1 more
weightage would fall upon the plaintiffs and the trial Court
while answering issue No.1 rightly held that plaintiff No.1
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16277
has proved that she is legally wedded wife of deceased B.
Nataraj.
15. The First Appellate Court while re-appreciating
the findings recorded by the trial Court re-appreciated the
evidence of PW1 to PW4 and their testimonies regarding the
marriage having taken place between plaintiff No.1 and
deceased B. Nataraj. The First Appellate Court held that the
documents produced by defendant No.1 would not prove
the marriage of defendant No.1 with the deceased B.
Nataraj more so when defendant No.1 was belonging to
Muslim community and there are rare chances to come to
the conclusion that she could be the legally wedded wife to
the deceased B. Nataraj. The voter's IDs at Ex.D7 and
Ex.10-Identity card showing the family details issued by
BSNL would not reveal the marriage being solemnized
between defendant No.1 and deceased B. Nataraj. The
perusal of the judgment of the Courts below would indicate
that the Courts below have rightly assessed the entire oral
and documentary evidence and arrived at a conclusion that
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16277
plaintiff No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the deceased B.
Nataraj. However, after answering the issue in favour of
plaintiff No.1, the trial Court arrived at a conclusion that the
deceased B. Nataraj has left behind two other children by
name Naushad @ Babu and Nasreen born to defendant
No.1 and held that they are entitled for 1/5th share as per
Section 8 of the Act.
16. Cross-objection was preferred by the plaintiffs
assailing granting of share in the service benefits to the two
children of defendant No.1, which came to be dismissed by
the First Appellate Court. The finding recorded granting
share to the two children to the extent of 1/5th has attained
finality. There is no perversity or illegality in the findings
recorded by the Courts below warranting any interference
under Section 100 CPC and no substantial question of law
arises for consideration in this appeal, accordingly, this
Court pass the following:
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16277
ORDER
i) The Regular Second Appeal is hereby
dismissed.
ii) The judgment and decree of the Court
below stands confirmed.
Sd/-
(JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA)
VNP - till para 2;
RH - from para 2; CT:PA
