Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 812 (KAR)

Vasantha Kumari v. Rani Shantha @ Philomena

2015-07-27

ANAND BYRAREDDY

body2015
JUDGMENT : Anand Byrareddy, J. The present appeal is filed by the defendants in a testamentary suit. The parties shall be referred to by their rank before the Trial Court. 2. The first plaintiff was the sister-in-law of the defendants. Plaintiff No. 2 was the son of Plaintiff No. 1. Plaintiff No. 3 was the minor daughter of the first plaintiff who is said to have died during the pendency of the appeal. It was the case of the plaintiffs, namely the respondents 1 and 2 herein that Respondent No. 1 was the legally wedded wife of S.L. Vijay Kumar who was the brother of the present appellants and that the marriage of the first plaintiff with S.L. Vijay Kumar was performed on 11.2.1981 at St. Johns Evangelist Church, at Bangalore. In the wedlock, it is claimed that the first plaintiff gave birth to the second plaintiff and the third plaintiff The husband of the first plaintiff namely S.L. Vijay Kumar was said to be working as a Senior Telephone Operator at the Telecom Exchange at Bangalore and he had retired and was a pensioner. It transpires that he had taken ill and he was admitted to the Manipal Hospital for treatment. It was at that stage that the present appellants - defendants are said to have prevented the Plaintiff No. 1 to meet her husband and take care of her. Therefore, she had got issued a notice dated 6.4.2002 to the employer of her husband and with the help of the officers of her husband's employer, the plaintiff was allowed to meet her husband. Ultimately, he died on 11.7.2004. During his lifetime, the husband of the plaintiff is said to have deposited a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in a Savings Bank Account bearing No. 17221 as on 22.05.2002 with M/s. Canara Bank, J.P. Nagar Branch, Bangalore and he had also obtained a Life Insurance Policy of Rs.50,000/- from the Life Insurance Corporation Division No. 614, Residency Road, Bangalore. It is claimed that he had nominated the third plaintiff the deceased daughter of Plaintiff No. 1 as the nominee and therefore, the plaintiffs were the only legal heirs of S.L. Vijay Kumar. It is claimed that he had nominated the third plaintiff the deceased daughter of Plaintiff No. 1 as the nominee and therefore, the plaintiffs were the only legal heirs of S.L. Vijay Kumar. After the death of S.L. Vijay Kumar, the first plaintiff having approached M/s. Canara Bank where there was a Fixed Deposit of her husband, she was informed that Defendant No. 1, namely the Appellant No. 1 herein was named as the nominee in respect of the said deposit and it was also learnt that Defendant No. 2 was appointed as minor guardian to Plaintiff No. 3 in the Life Insurance Corporation Policy and therefore, the plaintiffs were instructed that they could not lay claim to the Fixed Deposit, unless they obtained Succession Certificate and hence a petition for Succession Certificate was filed. Since the defendants had entered caveat, the petition was converted into a Testamentary suit and accordingly was adjudicated as a suit. 3. The defendants having entered appearance, the Defendant No. 1 had filed a separate written statement and Defendant No. 2 had adopted the said written statement filed by Defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 3, the Life Insurance Corporation of India had filed a separate written statement. Defendants 1 and 2 who were the sisters of S.L. Vijay Kumar admitted the fact that Plaintiff No. 1 was indeed the wife of S.L. Vijay Kumar, but it was denied that Plaintiffs 2 and 3 were children born to S.L. Vijay Kumar through Plaintiff No. 1, since S.L. Vijay Kumar and Plaintiff No. 1 had hardly lived together for few months after their marriage and thereafter had separated. 4. Therefore, there was no possibility of plaintiffs 2 and 3 being born to S.L. Vijay Kumar. Therefore, Defendants 1 and 2 were the only surviving heirs of S.L. Vijay Kumar. S.L. Vijay Kumar had nominated Defendant No. 1 for the Fixed Deposit and therefore, she was entitled to receive the benefit thereon. It was further contended that Defendant No. 2 was appointed as a guardian for Plaintiff No. 3 in respect of Item No. 2 of the suit property, namely the Life Insurance Corporation Policy. S.L. Vijay Kumar had nominated Defendant No. 1 for the Fixed Deposit and therefore, she was entitled to receive the benefit thereon. It was further contended that Defendant No. 2 was appointed as a guardian for Plaintiff No. 3 in respect of Item No. 2 of the suit property, namely the Life Insurance Corporation Policy. It was emphasised that Plaintiff No. 1 had left the matrimonial home of S.L. Vijay Kumar and did not lead any conjugal life with him and she had left along with her foster mother and thereafter had given birth to Plaintiffs 2 and 3 and they were certainly not the children of S.L. Vijay Kumar. S.L. Vijay Kumar had nothing to do with Plaintiff No. 1 after they separated and it transpires that their marriage was annulled by a so-called Tribunal Archdiocese, whereby the marriage between S.L. Vijay Kumar and the first plaintiff was annulled. Defendant No. 2 had filed an application for settlement of the entire benefits of the LIC Policy and the LIC Corporation had paid a sum of Rs.64,182/- in respect of the said policy to Defendant No. 2. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, the court below had framed the following issues: "1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the 1st plaintiff was the wife of deceased S.L. Vijay Kumar? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff No. 2 and 3 are the children of said S.L. Vijay Kumar? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for obtaining Succession Certificate relating to the property left behind by deceased S.L. Vijay Kumar? 4. Whether the defendant proves that the suit is barred by limitation? 5. Whether the defendant proves that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 6. Whether the defendant proves that the marriage between the 1st plaintiff and deceased S.L. Vijay Kumar was annulled in the year 1985 and ceased to be husband and wife? 7. What order? Additional Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the husband of plaintiff No. 1, father of plaintiff Nos. 2 & 3 during his lifetime, obtained an Insurance Policy bearing Policy No. 3611809233 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- at LIC Division No. 614, Residency Road, Bangalore and accordingly nominated the 3rd plaintiff? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to obtain Succession Certificate relating to the above referred LIC Policy? 6. The court below thereafter had held Issue Nos. 2 & 3 during his lifetime, obtained an Insurance Policy bearing Policy No. 3611809233 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- at LIC Division No. 614, Residency Road, Bangalore and accordingly nominated the 3rd plaintiff? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to obtain Succession Certificate relating to the above referred LIC Policy? 6. The court below thereafter had held Issue Nos. 1 and 2 in the affirmative, Issue No. 3 in favour of the plaintiffs and decided other issues in the negative. Further, the court below decided Additional Issue No. 1 in the affirmative and Additional Issue No. 2 in the negative and granted the Succession Certificate in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the Fixed Deposit amount lying with M/s. Canara Bank, while denying the claim in respect of the Life Insurance Corporation Policy. It is this which is under challenge in the present appeal. 7. Incidentally, after obtaining such Succession Certificate, the appellants having approached this Court before the application for an interim order of stay was considered and an order passed, it transpires that the Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 had withdrawn the amount lying in Fixed Deposit with M/s. Canara Bank. It is in that view of the matter that this appeal is canvassed vehemently to contend that there was admittedly nomination in favour of Appellant No. 1 herein in respect of the Fixed Deposit amount and therefore, notwithstanding the grant of Succession Certificate in favour of Respondents 1 and 2, they were not entitled to withdraw the amount depriving Defendant No. 1 of the benefit of the amount and therefore, apart from claiming that Plaintiff No. 1 was not entitled to the Succession Certificate in respect of S.L. Vijay Kumar's estate, as she had separated from him and the marriage was also annulled by the Church in which they were members and further, Plaintiff No. 2 not having been born to S.L. Vijay Kumar, Plaintiff No. 2 could not claim as the legal representatives of S.L. Vijay Kumar and that the amount withdrawn by them is rightfully that of Defendant No. 1 and seeks to attack the findings of the court below. 8. 8. Insofar as the relationship of the parties is concerned, especially the denial of the legitimacy of the Plaintiffs 2 and 3 and that S.L. Vijay Kumar had not married Rani Shantha is concerned, the court below has come to a categorical finding that even Defendants 1 and 2 do not deny that Plaintiff No. 1 - Respondent No. 1 in this appeal and S.L. Vijay Kumar were husband and wife. Their contention is that they had separated early in their marriage and never lived together. But however, there is material evidence to show that Plaintiffs 2 and 3 were their children and it is reflected in the Ration Card and other documents, which are not impeached. Therefore, the court below has come to a conclusion that there was a marital relationship between Plaintiff No. 1 and S.L. Vijay Kumar and Plaintiffs 2 and 3 were their children. Having found this, the court below has also addressed the entitlement of the Succession Certificate of Plaintiffs 1 and 2 insofar as the Life Insurance Corporation Policy is concerned and has found that it was Defendant No. 2 who was named as the guardian of Plaintiff No. 3 who was the nominee. Hence, has held that Succession Certificate could not be granted in respect of the said policy in favour of Plaintiffs 1 and 2. Notwithstanding that nomination is in favour of Defendant No. 1, the court below has held that in terms of Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, it is only the legal heirs who would succeed to the Estate of the deceased and not the nominee. Therefore, even if there was a nomination of Defendant No. 1, the court below has held that since the plaintiffs had established their relationship with S.L. Vijay Kumar that they were entitled to Succession Certificate in respect of the said Fixed Deposit. Insofar as the Life Insurance Corporation Policy is concerned, the reasoning of the court below is that the plaintiffs had failed to mention the exact amount of the Policy and as regards the further details of the policy and there was no specific prayer in the petition or the suit and hence, has denied the Succession Certificate insofar as the LIC Policy is concerned. It is in this background that the present appeal is filed on several grounds. 9. It is in this background that the present appeal is filed on several grounds. 9. It is to be seen that though the petition for Succession Certificate has been tried as a suit, it could remain as a Probate proceeding since it is a testamentary suit in view of contest by the defendants and ultimately, the court was only addressing as to the competent person as to who was entitled to the Succession Certificate. This in effect having been decided in favour of the plaintiffs, it would also not follow as a matter of course that the properties or the Estate left behind by the deceased could be claimed by the plaintiffs who have received the Succession Certificate. They would certainly be accountable to the court insofar as the distribution of the proceeds of the Estate, in accordance with law. Hence, if Defendant No. 1 was claiming as a nominee in respect of the Fixed Deposit with M/s. Canara Bank, the finding of the court that under Section 372, it is the legal heirs who would be entitled to claim the property if any of the deceased and not the nominee, is a finding which was not warranted in a testamentary suit. The limited jurisdiction of the court was only to decide as the proper person to whom Succession Certificate should be granted. Beyond this, there was no jurisdiction for the court below to arrive at a finding as to the entitlement of the asset either in favour of the person to whom the Succession Certificate was granted or a claimant who sets up a claim in respect of any particular security or asset as in the given case on hand. This is the settled legal position as laid down in a long line of cases. The learned counsel relies upon Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka v. Jasjit Singh and Others, (1993) 2 SCC 507 , to canvass the argument that when there is a nomination in favour of Defendant No. 1, the court below was not justified in holding that the legal heirs and not the nominee would be entitled to the benefit of any such security and therefore would submit that the judgment be set aside. The court below having come to a conclusion that the widow and children of late S.L. Vijay Kumar were entitled to the Succession Certificate, cannot however be faulted. 10. The court below having come to a conclusion that the widow and children of late S.L. Vijay Kumar were entitled to the Succession Certificate, cannot however be faulted. 10. Notwithstanding that Defendants 1 and 2 claimed that the Plaintiff No. 1 was separated from S.L. Vijay Kumar early in the marriage and that Plaintiffs 2 and 3 were not born out of the wedlock and that they were not the children of S.L. Vijay Kumar, has been negatived by the Trial Court and the trial court has found that Plaintiffs 2 and 3 were indeed the children of S.L. Vijay Kumar and Rani Shantha. Therefore, the Succession Certificate having been granted notwithstanding the entitlement of the plaintiffs, the benefit of the Fixed Deposit was the question which could not have been decided by the Trial Court and therefore, the remedy of the Defendant No. 1 was to file an independent suit and establish her claim to the said amount. The appellant having pursued the testamentary suit in the belief that rights of the parties to the benefits of the Estate would also be decided therein is under misconception and the defendants cannot be precluded from filing an independent suit in establishing their claim. Any such suit now to be filed shall not be held to be barred by limitation, as the appellants have prosecuted these proceedings including the present appeal in the bona fide belief that it would be the appropriate remedy for them. Hence, the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would be available to them in any fresh suit to be filed in laying claims to the benefit of the Fixed Deposit amount which is said to have been withdrawn by Plaintiffs 1 and 2 and utilized. Hence, leaving open such remedy with leave to file such a suit in respect of their claim, the appeal stands disposed of without prejudice to their right. I.A.1/2015 for impleading M/s. Canara Bank is rejected. Order accordingly.