K. Chandra , C. Chandra Kennedy And ... vs Smt. C.V.R. Mary James And 4 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 2263 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

           Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.602 OF 2009

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the order passed by the Principal District

Judge, Nalgonda in S.O.P.No.528 of 2001, dated 03.07.2008,

the respondent Nos.1 and 6 have filed the present appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will

be referred as per their array before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case, are as under.

The petitioner is mother of late C.J.Kennedy, who was

murdered on 30.05.2000 within the jurisdiction of Narketpally

Village. Respondent No.1 is the legally wedded wife of late

C.J.kennedy, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are his illegitimate

children born to respondent No.5-Smt.Yamuna @ Jameema.

During his life time, the deceased C.J.kennedy took a policy

from respondent No.4 for Rs.5,00,000/-. Though their

nomenclature appears as Christians, the parties belong to

Scheduled caste, professing Hindu Customs and Religion and

governed by Mitakshara School of Law. It is further alleged

that, late C.J.Kennedy and the petitioner along with her

husband and other children were residing jointly at Nalgonda.

He was running business under the name and style of

J.M.Enterprises at Meerbagh Colony, Nalgonda dealing in the

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, L.P. Gas distribution.

Respondent No.1 is the legally wedded wife of late C.J.Kennedy

and they had no children. While so, the said late C.J.Kennedy

developed illegal intimacy and contact with respondent No.5

w/o Vanarassa Ramakrishna R/o Padmarao Nagar,

Secunderabad. It is said that the respondent No.5 married

C.J.Kennedy, however, it is not within the knowledge or known

to the petitioner. During the said illegal intimacy between them,

respondent Nos.2 and 3 were borne to them. During the said

period, late C.J.Kennedy has taken the above said policy from

respondent No.4 for Rs.5,00,000/- and premiums were paid

regularly as per schedule and by the date of his death, the

policy was in force. In the policy, late C.J.Kennedy has given

the name of respondent No.5 as his nominee to receive the

amount under the policy.

It is further averred that the respondent No.5 having

developed disgust and hatred towards late C.J.Kennedy,

conspired with her husband V.Ramakrishna, and got murdered

him on 30.05.2000. Soon after his murder, respondent No.5

absconded, deserting respondent Nos.2 and 3 and taking away

many valuable gold and silver ornaments and other household

articles with her. Ever since the children are being looked after

by their paternal grand father i.e., the father of late C.J.Kennedy

and the petitioner. After having been arrested and sent to

judicial remand, respondent No.5 got bail and has been residing

with her parents at Eluru in West Godavari District. A case in

Crime No.50 of 2000 was registered in Narketpally Police

Station and after due investigation, police filed charge sheet

against the respondent no.5 and four others for the offences

punishable under Sections 120-B, 302, 435, 201, 109 r/w. Sec.

34 IPC, which was registered as SC No.80 of 2001 on the file of

Principal District Court, Nalgonda, and in the said case,

respondent No.5 was found guilty for the offences under

Sec.120-B, 302 r/w. 34 IPC. Taking advantage of her name as

nominee in the policy, respondent No.5 making claim for the

amount under the policy and when the petitioner represented

the respondent No.4, to pay the policy amounts, they informed

her that in view of the nomination, they would pay the amount

only to respondent No.5, unless there is any such Court order.

Since the petitioner is the mother, and respondent No.1 being

the legally wedded wife, and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are

illegitimate children, they are entitled to claim and receive the

amount under the policy and since respondent No.4 is not

inclined to follow the legal procedure in payment of the said

amounts, the petitioner is compelled to approach the Court.

Thus, the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 to 3 are entitled to

receive the policy amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with accrued bonus

from respondent No.4, out of which, the petitioner is entitled to

1/4th share which comes to Rs.1,25,000/- and proportionate

bonus, for which she is seeking a Succession Certificate.

4. Respondent Nos.1 and 6, who are said to be the wife and

son of the deceased-C.J.Kennedy filed counter stating that

respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5 have no relationship with the

deceased. It is further contended by respondent No.1 that she

being the wife and respondent No.6 being the adopted son of

C.J.Kennedy and the petitioner being mother of the deceased

are entitled for grant of Succession Certificate having each 1/3rd

share in the amounts, which are payable by respondent No.4

Insurance Company and prayed to issue Succession Certificate

accordingly.

5. Respondent No.4 Insurance Company filed counter

contending that in view of the nomination of respondent No.5 in

the insurance policy, they would pay the amount to her only

along with the bonus and other benefits under the policy.

6. Respondent No.5 filed counter denying the allegations

made in the petition and contended that the deceased Kennedy

during his life time, married her and they lived as man and wife

from 1992 to 1994 at Hyderabad and Nalgonda and after his

murder, she left for Hyderabad and as the deceased nominated

her name in the policy, she alone is entitled to the amount

covered by the policy and therefore, herself and respondent

Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to the share in the estate of late

Kennedy along with the petitioner and the respondent No.1.

7. Before the trial Court, on behalf of the petitioner, she was

examined as PW.1 and Ex.A1 got marked. On behalf of the

respondents, none were examined and no document was

marked.

8. The learned Principal District Judge, Nalgonda after

considering the oral and documentary evidence available on

record, held that the respondent No.5 is not entitled to any

amount covered by policy, however, the petitioner being the

mother, respondent No.1 being the wife and respondent Nos.2

and 3 being the children of the deceased C.J.Kennedy are only

entitled to the insurance policy amount as claimed by the

petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent Nos.1 and 6

have preferred the present appeal.

9. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the

learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and perused the

record.

10. The main contention of the learned counsel for the

appellants/respondent Nos.1 and 6 is that the deceased

C.J.Kennedy adopted the appellant No.2 at his age of 3 months

and they admitted him in a school known as "Johnson

Grammer School", Habsiguda, Hyderabad and as such,

appellant No.2 is entitled a share in the LIC policy. The learned

Judge ought to have seen that the petitioner and respondent

Nos.2 and 3 did not place any material on record to show that

the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are illegitimate children of the

deceased and as such, they are not entitled equal share along

with the petitioner and respondent No.1. It is further contended

that the respondent No.5 is a married woman, having husband

by name Ramakrishna. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were said to

have been born during the subsistence of the marriage of

respondent No.5 with Ramakrishna, as such, it cannot be said

that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the illegitimate children of

the deceased. Therefore, prayed to allow the appeal setting

aside the order passed by the trial Court and to grant

succession certificate in favour of the appellant Nos.1 and 2 and

respondent No.1 in respect of LIC policy pertaining to late

C.J.Kennedy.

11. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent

No.1/petitioner is that after considering the evidence on record,

the learned Judge has rightly held that the petitioner being the

mother, respondent No.1 being the wife and respondent Nos.2

and 3 being the children of the deceased C.J.Kennedy are only

entitled to the insurance policy amount as claimed by the

petitioner. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

12. Perused the evidence available on record. Admittedly,

there is no dispute with regard to the relationship of the

petitioner who is mother and respondent No.1 who is the wife of

the deceased-C.J.Kennedy. Petitioner was examined as PW.1,

has reiterated the petition averments. In support of their case,

she filed Ex.A1 certified copy of Judgment in G.W.O.P.No.1020

of 2001 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda.

13. According to the petitioner, the deceased C.J.Kennedy

developed illegal intimacy with respondent No.5 Smt.Yamuna @

Jameema, married her, however, it is not within the knowledge

or known to the petitioner. During the said illegal intimacy

between them, respondent Nos.2 and 3 were borne to them.

During the said period late C.J.Kennedy has taken the policy

from respondent No.4 for Rs.5,00,000/-. Later she developed

hatred towards C.J.Kennedy, conspired with her husband

V.Ramakrishna and got murdered him on 30.5.2000, for which

a case was registered in crime No.50 of 2000 by the Police,

Narketpally and in that case respondent No.5 was found guilty

for the offences under Sections 120-B, 302 r/w. 34 IPC.

14. Though the learned counsel for the appellants/

respondent Nos.1 and 6 contended that the deceased and the

appellant No.1 adopted the appellant No.2 at his age of 3

months, they did not file any oral or documentary evidence to

prove the same. Further it is averred in the petition that soon

after the death of late C.J.Kennedy, respondent No.5 absconded

by deserting respondent Nos.2 and 3, taken away many

valuable gold and silver ornaments and other household articles

with her. Petitioner in her evidence stated that after respondent

No.5 absconded, she took care of the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

15. Further though it is contended by the appellants that the

respondent Nos.2 and 3 were born during the subsistence of the

marriage of respondent No.5 with Ramakrishna, as such, it

cannot be said that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the

illegitimate children of the deceased, they failed to move any

application to conduct D.N.A. test to disprove their paternity

with the deceased C.J.Kennedy and to prove that they are the

children born to Ramakrishna. Further Ex.A1 certified copy of

judgment passed by the I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda in

GWOP No.1020 of 2001 shows that the petition filed by

respondent No.5 for appointment as guardian of the person and

property of the minors viz., respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein was

dismissed.

16. Coming to the respondent No.6, though it is contended by

the respondent No.1 that the respondent No.6 was their adopted

son, they did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence to

show that the respondent No.6 was adopted by the respondent

No.1 and the deceased while he was alive. Thus, the contention

of the appellants that the respondent No.6 is the adopted son of

the deceased is unsustainable. In view of the above discussion,

this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court has

rightly held that the respondent No.5 is not entitled to any

amount covered by the insurance policy and the petitioner and

respondent No.1 to 3 are only entitled to the insurance policy

amount as claimed by the petitioner. Therefore, this Court does

not find any ground to interfere with the findings of the learned

trial Judge. Hence, there are no merits in this Civil

Miscellaneous Appeal and it is liable to be dismissed.

17. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

__________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 12.09.2023 PGP