T.S. Mahalaxmi vs M. Ravindranath
2023 Latest Caselaw 1768 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

         CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.60 of 2022

JUDGMENT:

This City Civil Court Appeal is filed against the Judgment

and decree dated 25.04.2022 in O.S.No.634 of 2013, passed by

the learned III-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad.

2. O.S.No.634 of 2013 was filed by the plaintiff

No.1/husband along with plaintiff No.2/son against the Banks

in which his wife Veena Kumari has taken loans and also

against the mother of Veena Kumari i.e, defendant No.3 and

after her death her legal representatives brought on record i.e,

defendants No.4 to 6.

3. The trial Court examined P.Ws.1 & 2 on behalf of the

plaintiffs and marked Exs.A1 to A18. The son of defendant No.3

was examined as D.W.1 and marked Exs.B1 to B4 on behalf of

defendants.

4. The trial Court after considering the entire oral and

documentary evidence, decreed the Suit in favour of plaintiffs

and declared them as legal heirs and successors of deceased

Veena Kumari under Section 15 and 16 of the Hindu

Succession Act, 1956 and stated that they shall inherit all her

assets and liabilities shown in the suit schedule property.

Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the present appeal is preferred

by the legal representatives of the defendant No.3, as she died

during the pendency of the proceedings.

5. Appellants/defendants No.3 to 6 mainly contended that

respondents No.1 & 2/plaintiffs are not entitled for any benefits

of deceased Veena Kumari as legal heirs, as their mother

T.S.Mahalaxmi was the nominee of the deceased. Their

mother/D3 filed O.S.No.4398 of 2008 for injunction against the

respondent No.1 and the same was decreed on 03.03.2011, as

there was no appeal preferred against it, it became final. The

deceased Veena Kumari permitted defendant No.3 as her

nominee till her death. Though her name was shown as the

nominee prior to her marriage, she has not changed the name of

the first plaintiff as nominee, as she has no faith on her

husband. The respondent No.1 married another woman after

the death of Veena Kumari. The respondents No.1 & 2 earlier

filed a suit in O.S.No.1855 of 2013 against their mother and the

same was dismissed on contest on 23.10.2018, as the

respondents No.1&2 claimed the same relief which was claimed

by them in O.S.No.634 of 2013. The citations filed by them in

favour of the nominee were not considered by the trial Court.

They further stated that the respondent No.2 was examined as

P.W.2, but he was never examined. Therefore, requested the

Court to set aside the Judgment and decree passed by the trial

Court.

6. A simple Suit was filed by the respondents No.1 &

2/plaintiffs to declare them as the legal heirs of the deceased

Veena Kumari, but the mother of Veena Kumari contested all

the matters and there were several cases between the parties

and thus not only relationship between the plaintiffs and

defendant No.3 was strange, but there was considerable amount

of litigation between the parties, as such it is required for this

Court to mention all the details for arriving to proper

conclusion.

7. The marriage of plaintiff No.1 with Veena Kumari was

performed on 26.04.1992 and they are blessed with a son i.e,

plaintiff No.2, but Veena Kumari died intestate on 30.08.2008.

He filed her death certificate to show that she died due to acute

coronary insufficiency. The deceased Veena Kumari was worked

as Assistant Manager in State Bank of Hyderabad. Even prior to

her marriage, she was in service, but during her service, she

has taken several loans nearly 10 different types of loans as

detailed in the plaint. The loans were provided to her under

different account numbers. Apart from that she has also taken

two housing loans from Chikkadpally Branch of State Bank of

Hyderabad. The defendant No.1 is the State Bank of Hyderabad,

Chikkadpally and it is working under the Head Office i.e,

defendant No.2. In letter dated 29.12.2008, the details of loans

taken by her was mentioned and in the letter dated 23.12.2008,

details of the housing loans provided to her were mentioned.

She has taken housing loan by mortgaging house property

bearing No. 3-5-26 at Bharathnagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad

and the original documents were deposited with the first

defendant Branch and she also deposited 8 National Savings

Certificates, Gold and Golden Jubilee Cash Certificates with

State Bank of Hyderabad, Ramannapet Branch and raised loan

against the said securities, but suddenly she died on

30.08.2008.

8. Plaintiffs stated that as they are lawful legal heirs, they

are entitled to her service benefits by way of gratuity of

Rs.3,50,000/-, Provident Fund of Rs.24,000/- and Pension @

5304/- plus D.A applicable to the spouse of Veena Kumari.

While she was in service, she subscribed to SBI Life Insurance,

as such she is entitled for Rs.10,00,000/- insurance on her

death. As she joined in service prior to marriage, she provided

her mother as nominee in the records of the Bank and also in

the National Savings Certificate. The defendant No.3 along with

her two sons and two daughters was running a small hotel and

her daughter Veena Kumari was providing financial assistance.

The father of Veena Kumari was lastly seen at the time of her

marriage in the year 1992 and later his whereabouts were not

known. Though, he reliably learnt that he died long back, the

defendant No.3 claims that her husband is alive and he is at

Bombay. The defendant No.3 and her children gave complaint

on the death of Veena Kumari against him in F.I.R.No.711/2008

dated 31.08.2008, but after investigation final report was filed

stating that death of Veena Kumari was natural and

investigation was closed on 20.12.2008. The defendant No.3

also filed Suit for Perpetual injunction in the name of plaintiff

No.2 representing herself as next friend vide O.S.No.4398 of

2008 and a copy of the Judgment dated 03.03.2011 was filed

before the Court. The defendant No.3 also filed O.P.No.56 of

2009 to appoint her as natural guardian of plaintiff No.2 and

the same was dismissed, but the copy of the said Judgment was

not filed. The plaintiff No.2 is residing with the plaintiff No.1 and

is studying in Hyderabad Public School, Ramanthpur.

9. When plaintiff No.1 addressed a letter to the defendant

No.1 Bank seeking to provide details of the outstanding balance

of housing loans, by letter dated 29.12.2009 they stated that

outstanding balance in the housing loan account bearing

No.52024348568 was Rs.7,29,934.33ps and in the housing loan

account No.52024348956 the balance was Rs.25,813.67ps.

Plaintiff No.1 also requested the Bank to furnish details of 10

loans, in response they provided the details as on 31.08.2008

by letter dated 23.12.2000. The Bank stated that they have

adjusted Rs.10,00,000/- insurance amount against the loan

amount and the surplus amount of Rs.1,39,313 was credited to

one of the housing loan account. They have also adjusted

Rs.84,598.08 ps pertaining to the leave encashment of 96 days

to her another housing loan account and stated that legal heirs

of Veena Kumari are entitled to receive the National Savings

Certificate, Golden Jubilee Cash Certificates and Gold

Ornaments. Plaintiff No.1 issued a notice to the Bank on

12.12.2008 intimating them not to disburse the terminal

benefits to anyone especially to defendant No.3. In the month of

December, 2009 they stated that they will hand over the above

certificates to the legal heirs on production of succession

certificate and no due certificate from defendant No.1 Branch.

The plaintiff No.1 made an application to Tahsildar, Uppal

Mandal vide proceedings No. C/17204/2008 dated 03.11.2008

and thus Family Member Certificate was issued by the said

office declaring plaintiffs as legal heirs of Veena Kumari who

died on 30.08.2008. He also filed copy of the F.I.R, Final report

and Post Mortem Report.

10. Plaintiffs further contended that Veena Kumari is the

Hindu female died intestate, as such the succession would

follow on the basis of Section 15 & 16 of the Hindu Succession

Act, 1956. As per Entry - 1 of Section 16, they would be the

eligible successors of the deceased Veena Kumari and they need

not obtain any succession Certificate under Section 372 of the

Indian Succession Act, 1925. Plaintiffs also filed O.S.No.1917 of

2010, but it was dismissed on 24.04.2013 on the ground that

the value of the properties is more than Rs.1,00,000/- and thus

Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction. Therefore, requested the

Court to declare them as legal heirs and successors of Veena

Kumari as per Section 15 & 16 of the Hindu Succession Act,

1956. They are only the lawful owners of the assets and

liabilities left by the deceased Veena Kumari.

11. In the Counter filed by the defendant No.3, she denied all

the material allegations and further stated that plaintiff No.1 is

the husband and plaintiff No.2 is the son of her daughter Veena

Kumari, but she died under suspicious circumstances and her

death is unnatural death at very young age, as such she filed

F.I.R.No.711 of 2008 dated 31.08.2008. She also filed Suit for

injunction as a Grand-mother and next friend of plaintiff No.2 in

O.S.No.4398 of 2008 and decree was passed on 03.03.2011 and

it became final as no appeal was preferred. During the life time

of Veena Kumari, she acquired movable and immovable

properties including Life Insurance Policies. The plaintiff No.2

alone is entitled for terminal benefits. The plaintiff

No.1/husband is habituated to all bad vices and he killed his

wife on 30.08.2008. He is trying to knock away all the

properties to deprive plaintiff No.2 who was a minor, as such he

issued legal notice to defendants not to make any transaction

pertaining to the terminal benefits. When they expressed their

inability, as there is no specific Order from the competent Court

she filed suit to protect the interest of the plaintiff No.2. She

also stated that when plaintiff No.1 filed Suit for declaration in

O.S.No.1917 of 2010, it was dismissed on 24.04.2013. She

stated that plaintiff No.2 is a minor boy aged about 12 years, his

mother died due to physical and mental torture put to her by

plaintiff No.1.

12. Admittedly, defendant No.3 is the nominee for all the

amounts. The plaintiff No.1 suppressed his first marriage and

about the death of his first wife and informed to defendant No.3

that he is unmarried at the time of marriage with the Veena

Kumari. Later, she came to know about his first marriage and

even after marrying his daughter, he performed another

marriage, as such though her daughter mentioned her name as

nominee prior to her marriage, she has not altered the name of

her husband in the said records, but he approached the Court

with an ulterior motive. She also stated that she is aged about

60 years and contesting all the suits filed by the plaintiff No.1

only for the sake of plaintiff No.2 till he became major and she

has no evil intention or idea to grab the assets of her daughter.

Her endeavor is to protect the minor son and she has no

personal interest over the benefits and assets of her daughter

and thus requested the Court to decree the Suit in favour of

minor son.

13. Perusal of the record shows that defendant No.3 filed

complaint against plaintiff No.1 stating that the death of her

daughter is not the natural death, but after investigation it was

held that she died due to 'acute coronary insufficiency' and it is

the natural death. Plaintiffs filed O.S.No.1917 of 2010 for

declaration and injunction. In the said Suit the pendency of

O.S.No.4398 of 2008 and O.P.No.56 of 2009 were mentioned by

him. It was contested by defendant No.3, the said Suit was

disposed of on merits, in which it was observed that decree was

granted in favour of defendant No.3 in O.S.No.4398 of 2008 and

no appeal was preferred, but however the value of the properties

from A to D is more than Rs.1,00,000/- and thus the said Court

has not pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the Suit and

accordingly it was dismissed on 24.04.2013. Plaintiffs filed

O.S.No.1855 of 2013 seeking to declare them as owners and

successors of the deceased Veena Kumari, but in the said

Judgment it was observed that already O.S.No.634 of 2013 was

filed before the Court as on the date of filing the said suit and to

avoid multiplicity of the Judgments, the said Suit was dismissed

on 23.10.2018. The copy of the petition and counter in

O.P.No.56 of 2009 is filed, but the Order of the said petition has

not been filed before this Court.

14. There is no dispute regarding the fact that plaintiff No.1 is

the husband and plaintiff No.2 is the son of Veena Kumari, but

she died intestate on 30.08.2008. The plaintiff No.1 in his

evidence stated that previously he married one Saritha and after

her death, he married Veena Kumari. Whereas, the defendant

No.3 stated that he suppressed the said fact and stated that he

is unmarried and thus she performed the marriage of her

daughter with the plaintiff No.1. Even after his marriage with

Veena Kumari, he married another woman, but she has not

filed any documents to show that he performed third marriage

after his marriage with Veena Kumari. She herself again stated

that he performed third marriage after the death of her

daughter. If it is so, it cannot be said that it is not legally valid

marriage. The plaintiff No.1 stated that previously he worked in

defence and getting pension from the said job and presently he

is working in a private organization since 1992. He has not

given any other details regarding his employment like nature of

work, salary, etc. The said suit was filed only to declare him and

his son as legal heirs of his wife Veena Kumari. The mother of

Veena Kumari mainly contended that her name was mentioned

in the Service Records and also in some of the insurance

policies as nominee. Even after the marriage, she has not

changed her name in view of the conduct of the plaintiff No.1.

She further stated that she is much concerned about the

welfare of the second plaintiff, as he is the minor aged about 12

years and he is entitled for all the benefits of her daughter. At

one point of time, she stated that she has no objection for

keeping the amount in the name of plaintiff No.2 till he attains

the age of majority and plaintiff No.1 can be shown as natural

guardian. The trial Court observed that merely because her

name was mentioned as nominee, she is not entitled for the

terminal benefits or for the said insurance amount as she is the

mother of the deceased. The deceased Veena Kumari has

husband and son after the marriage who are legal heirs.

15. The defendant No.3 died on 04.08.2021, as such through

I.A.No.868 of 2021 in O.S.No.634 of 2013, legal representatives

of defendant No.3 were brought on record. They mainly

contended that they are entitled for 20% of the assets of the

Veena Kumari as their mother contested the litigation and spent

so much of amount for the legal expenses. Though, the

defendant No.3 filed O.P for declaration to declare her as a

guardian and next friend of plaintiff No.2, she was not declared

as the guardian, as plaintiff No.1 natural father is alive. The

details of the other suits were mentioned in the above

paragraphs and need not be repeated again. When the learned

Counsel for the defendant No.3 argued that O.S.No.1855 of

2013 is barred by constructive res-judicata under Order 2 rule 2

of C.P.C, the trial Court held that merely because the said Suit

was dismissed under Order 2 rule 2 of C.P.C., it cannot be said

that the present Suit is not maintainable.

16. Admittedly, plaintiffs filed suit for declaration to declare

them as legal heirs of Veena Kumari. There is no dispute

regarding the fact that plaintiff No.1 is the husband and plaintiff

No.2 is the son of Veena Kumari, as such the trial Court

considering the evidence on record rightly decreed the Suit in

their favour and declared them as legal heirs and successors of

Veena Kumari and also held that they shall inherit all the assets

and liabilities shown under the suit schedule property. This

Court finds no infirmity in the Judgment of the trial Court and

it needs no interference.

17. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the

Judgment and decree dated 25.04.2022 in O.S.No.634 of 2013,

passed by the learned III-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil

Court, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

_________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA DATED: 25.04.2023 tri

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No. 60 of 2022

DATED: 25.04.2023

TRI