Mittapalli Laxmi Prasanna vs Mittapalli Sugunamma
2022 Latest Caselaw 6051 Tel

     THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT P.SREE SUDHA

                APPEAL SUIT No.553 OF 2003


JUDGMENT:

This appeal is directed against the judgment of the

dated 31.01.2003 in O.S.No.78 of 1997 on the file Senior

Civil Judge, Miryalaguda.

2. The suit is filed by the mother of Venkateshwarlu

against her daughter-in-law and grandsons and also

against the insurance companies i.e. United India

Insurance Co. Limited and Secretary of Bar Council of

Andhra Pradesh for 1/4th share in the amounts to be paid

to her son. She claimed her share along with the wife and

children of the Venkateshwarlu.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that her son was a

practicing advocate at Miryalguda. D1 is his wife, D2 and

D3 are his children. Her son died on 21.06.1997 in a car

accident. He was insured in United India Insurance for

Rs.5,00,000/- vide policy No.051402/47/56/6062 dated

28.08.1996. Apart from that, he was also insured with

Nalgonda District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., under

J.P.A and G.P.A Insurance Policy of National Insurance

Company Ltd., vide certificate bearing

No.55110/No.0055652 dated 29.03.1996 for an amount of

Rs.35,000/-. Apart from that, insured in United India

Insurance Company Ltd., for Rs.50,000/- towards Car

Accident Policy and his legal heirs are entitled for

Rs.40,000/- from the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh.

4. She further stated that, she purchased scooter

bearing No.AP-10-F5349 worth Rs.20,000/-, furniture and

books for Rs.1,00,000/-, house hold articles like Air

Coolers, Refrigerator, Washing Machine and other house-

hold articles worth Rs.50,000/- to him and she is entitled

for 1/4th share in the said items. Apart from that,

Rs.1,25,000/- cash was kept in the car, when he met with

accident, and the said amount was taken by A1 on the date

of accident and she is entitled for 1/4th in the said amount.

5. D1 in written statement admitted their relation and

stated that she has not received any personal accident

policy under J.P.A and G.P.A Insurance Policy of National

Insurance Company Ltd., for an amount of Rs.35,000/-

and she didn't receive any amount of Rs.40,000/- from the

Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh and she received only

Rs.3,75,000/- from United India Insurance Company Ltd.,

for her and her children. She also stated that the policy

made by her husband while purchasing the car under Hire

Purchase system was for Rs.50,000/-, but it was adjusted

towards the balance instalments of the car, and in fact she

also paid Rs.5,000/- to the insurance company apart from

adjusting of the said amount. She further stated that the

scooter was purchased by her parents after their marriage,

furniture and books worth Rs.1,00,000/-, claim by the

plaintiff was taken away by them after accident by

breaking over the doors of the office and as such she is not

entitled for 1/4th share.

6. She further stated that the household articles were

given by her parents after marriage and she has not

received any amount from the place of the accident after

the death of her husband. As she is the nominee of her

husband policy, she is entitled for said amount and the

suit is liable to be dismissed. The Trial Court considering

the arguments of both sides held that plaintiff/mother is

also legal heir along with the wife and children of the

deceased, as such she is entitled for share in the policy of

the insurance company. She is entitled for 1/4th share in

the policy of the insurance company worth Rs.5,35,000/-

and also the amount to be paid by the Bar Council of

Andhra Pradesh.

7. The Trial Court has held that as the car insurance

policy amount was already adjusted towards the

instalments due to be paid and D1 paid additional amount

of Rs.5,000/-. The question of 1/4th share to the plaintiff

does not arise. It is also held that the household articles

and scooter were purchased after the marriage of the

deceased and plaintiff has not filed any receipts or record

to show that she purchased the property as such she is not

entitled for 1/4th share in item No. 3,5 and 6 of the Plaint

Schedule properties and it was also observed that it was

not proved by the plaintiff that the cash of Rs.1,25,000/-

from the car was taken away by D1. As such the plaintiff is

not entitled for share in item No.8 and accordingly the suit

was decreed in favour of the plaintiff for item Nos.1,2 and 7

of the Plaint Schedule properties and dismissed regarding

item Nos. 3 to 6 and 8 of the plaintiff.

8. Aggrieved by the said order, the wife and children of

the deceased preferred an appeal in the year 2003 in which

the age of mother of the deceased was shown as 61 years.

9. When the matter came up for hearing on 03.11.2022,

there was no representation by the respondent. Heard the

arguments of the appellant counsel by the previous bench

on 17.06.2022 and also by me on 21.10.2022 and posted

for respondent hearing on 03.11.2022. But, there was

representation for the respondent counsel, as such it is

reserved for judgment on 08.11.2022. Considering the age

of the respondent in the year 2003 as 61 years, this Court

feels that she may be aged more than 80 years and not be

in a position to attend the Court or maybe she is no more,

as such there is no representation on her part.

10. The counsel of the appellant relied upon the citation

reported in SMT.K.SATYAVATHI V/s. THE REGIONAL

DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE

CORPORATION, HYDERABAD1 holding to the effect that

'the amount payable to the deceased under the head of

'death-cum-retirement gratuity' in Rule 50 of the Pension

1990 (3) A.L.T. 253

Rules does not form part of the estate of the deceased. The

mother cannot claim any part of the said amount by way of

general succession. The wife alone is exclusively and

absolutely entitled to the same'. She also relied upon the

citation reported in M.Ct.MUTHAIAH V/s. CONTROLLER

OF E.D. MADRAS2 in which it was held that the money

payable under the accident insurance policy of the death of

the policy holder is not liable to estate duty. Though the

policy was taken for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, the

appellant herein received only Rs.3,75,000/- and as per

the above decision, respondent No.1 herein is not entitled

for share in the policy issued under J.P.A and G.P.A

Insurance Policy of National Insurance Company Ltd., and

as on the date of filing the suit, the appellant No.1 has not

received the money from the Bar Council also.

11. In the absence of arguments of the respondent

counsel, considering the arguments of the appellant

counsel, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to

hold that the appellants alone are entitled for the amounts

in respect of item Nos. 1, 2 and 7 of the claim scheduled

1986 Supreme Court 1863

property and respondent No.1 is not entitled for any share

as held by the Trial Court.

12. In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside

the order of the Trial Court dated 31.01.2003.

13. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE SMT P.SREE SUDHA Date: 22.11.2022.

sus