Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 180 (AP)

N. Nagaraju v. N. Varalakshmi

2020-03-03

BATTU DEVANAND, C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

body2020
JUDGMENT: C.Praveen Kumar, J. The present appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 aggrieved by the order, dated 20.04.2007, in F.C.O.P.No.18 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court – cum – V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, wherein application filed under Order VII Rule 1 and Section 26 C.P.C. by respondent Nos.1 to 4/petitioners to declare them and the appellant herein/respondent No.1 as legal heirs of the deceased N.Venkatarathnam and to pay death benefits of the deceased N.Venkatarathnam equally to them and consequently, to grant pension of the deceased N.Venkatarathnam to respondent No.1/petitioner No.1, was allowed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they were referred before the trial Court. 3. The facts in issue are as under: Petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Venkatarathnam. It is said that out of wedlock, petitioner No.1 gave birth to petitioner Nos.2 to 4 and one Janaki Ram, who died due to ill-health. Late Venkatarathnam married one Munemma, who died in or about 1976. After the death of Munemma, Venkatarathnam is said to have married petitioner No.1 in the year 1977. Out of wedlock of Venkatarathnam with Munemma, a male child by name Nagaraju, who is respondent No.1, was born. It is to be noted here that said Venkatarathnam was working under respondent Nos.2 and 3 as an Assistant Lineman at Sub-Station, Thukiwakam of Renigunta Mandal and died on 01.04.2005 while in service. The said Venkatarathnam died leaving behind the petitioners and respondent No.1 as wife and children respectively as his legal heirs to succeed to his estate including the death benefits from respondent Nos.2 and 3. The petitioners submit that they and respondent No.1 are having 1/5th share each and they are entitled to receive the death benefits of deceased Venkatarathnam, while respondent No.1 claimed all the benefits of the deceased from respondent Nos.2 and 3. It is said that though the petitioners approached respondent Nos.2 and 3 to receive the death benefits and get employment on compensatory grounds, the same was postponed on one pretext or the other. Hence, the petition. 4. Counter came to be filed by respondent No.1 disputing the allegations made therein. It is said that though the petitioners approached respondent Nos.2 and 3 to receive the death benefits and get employment on compensatory grounds, the same was postponed on one pretext or the other. Hence, the petition. 4. Counter came to be filed by respondent No.1 disputing the allegations made therein. It is stated that respondent No.1 was looking after the deceased with utmost love and affection and hence, when the said Venkatarathnam was in a sound state of mind, he executed a registered will in his favour bequeathing the benefits such as G.P.F., insurance and other benefits and as such, he is entitled to recover the same. It is further stated that on 03.07.2002, the said Venkatarathnam executed a gift settlement deed in favour of respondent No.1. After coming to know about the said settlement, the petitioners filed O.S.No.38 of 2002 seeking permanent injunction against respondent No.1. Since the petitioners are not entitled to any benefits in view of the registered will and gift settlement deed, respondent No.1 sought for dismissal of the O.P. 5. Respondent No.3 filed counter alleging that on account of the disputes between the petitioners and respondent No.1, the departmental authorities could not settle the dispute. It was further stated that compassionate appointment will be made according to the settled Rules by the authorities. Respondent No.3 further stated that the petitioners and respondent No.1 are shown as family members in the Service Register of the deceased employee. Having regard to the above, it is pleaded that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not responsible for their failure to settle the death benefits. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: “(1) Whether the petitioners 1 to 4 are the legal representatives of the deceased N.Venkatarathnam. If so, whether they are entitled to the death benefits of Venkatarathnam along with the 1st respondent? (2) Whether the 1st petitioner is entitled to pension of the deceased N.Venkatarathnam?” 7. In support of their case, the petitioners were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4 while the respondents examined R.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.B-1 to B-6. 8. (2) Whether the 1st petitioner is entitled to pension of the deceased N.Venkatarathnam?” 7. In support of their case, the petitioners were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4 while the respondents examined R.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.B-1 to B-6. 8. Considering the entire evidence available on record, the trial Court allowed the O.P. holding as under: “In the result, the petition is allowed declaring the petitioners 1 to 4 and 1st respondent are legal representatives of deceased Venkatarathnam and they are entitled to 1/5th share each in the death benefits of the deceased Venkatarathnam. The 1st petitioner being the wife of Venkatarathnam is entitled to receive family pension. It is left to the discretion of the respondents 2 and 3 with regard to giving employment on compassionate grounds as per their Rules.” Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed by respondent No.1. 9. It is stated in the grounds of appeal that the trial Court erred in not accepting the registered will and gift settlement deed executed in favour of respondent No.1. It was further pleaded that having regard to the evidence of R.Ws.1 to 4, the trial Court ought to have seen that the deceased executed a registered will bequeathing his G.P.F., insurance etc., in favour of respondent No.1 and ought to have rejected the claim of the petitioners. As such, it is pleaded that the O.P. filed by the petitioners is liable to be dismissed as they have no right or authority over the entire property. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no proof to indicate the very execution of the will. Any proof of circumstances to indicate the execution of the will is doubtful and as such, pleads that the order of the trial Court warrants no interference. 11. It is to be noted that P.W.1, in her evidence, deposed about her marriage with Venkatarathnam on 03.04.1987 and also about the first marriage of Venkatarathnam with Munemma in the 1976. She also speaks about the children born to her through Venkatarathnam and respondent No.1 being born through Munemma and the entitlement of 1/5th share each in the death benefits of the deceased Venkatarathnam. She also speaks about the children born to her through Venkatarathnam and respondent No.1 being born through Munemma and the entitlement of 1/5th share each in the death benefits of the deceased Venkatarathnam. It is pleaded that respondent No.1 is trying to withdraw all the death benefits of the deceased Venkatarathnam and if respondent Nos.2 and 3 disburse the death benefits of the deceased Venkatarathnam to respondent No.1, the petitioners will be put to great hardship, as they are the legal heirs of the deceased Venkatarathnam. She placed on record Ex.A-1 – copy of Family Members Certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupati and Exs.A-2 to A-4 – letters written by respondent No.3 to petitioner Nos.1 and 4. 12. P.W.2, who is the relative of the deceased Venkatarathnam, deposed that the deceased Venkatarathnam is his uncle and petitioner No.1 is the wife of the deceased Venkatarathnam while petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are his children. He claims to have been present at the time of marriage between Venkatarathnam and petitioner No.1. Though both these witnesses were cross examined at length, nothing useful was elicited to discredit their testimony. 13. R.W.1, in his evidence, deposed that he looked after his father Venkatarathnam very well and out of love and affection. According to him, the will, dated 24.04.2003, came to be executed in a sound disposing state of mind bequeathing the benefits such as G.P.F., Insurance etc., in his favour. It is said that his father died on 01.04.2005. He further deposed that his father gifted a house bearing No.20.1.471/G.4 at Maruthi Nagar, Korlagunta, Tirupati under a registered settlement deed, dated 03.07.2002, in his favour. Hence, pleads that he is entitled for the properties mentioned in the will and the gift deed. 14. R.W.2 is said to be the attestor of the will executed by the deceased Venkatarathnam in favour of respondent No.1. Himself and one G.Muni Kumar were said to be the attestors to the said will. 15. R.W.3 is another attestor of the will executed by the deceased Venkatarathnam in favour of respondent No.1. His evidence is to the effect that while the deceased Venkatarathnam was in a sound state of mind, he executed a will in favour of respondent No.1. In his cross examination, he states that the deceased Venkatarathnam used to come to his shop and as such, he is acquainted with him. 16. His evidence is to the effect that while the deceased Venkatarathnam was in a sound state of mind, he executed a will in favour of respondent No.1. In his cross examination, he states that the deceased Venkatarathnam used to come to his shop and as such, he is acquainted with him. 16. R.W.4 is the family friend of the deceased Venkatarathnam, who speaks about the misunderstandings between petitioner No.1 and the deceased Venkatarathnam. He also deposed that respondent No.1 looked after the deceased Venkatarathnam till his death. 17. While the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 establishes that petitioner No.1 is the wife and petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are the children of the deceased Venkatarathnam born through him, the evidence of R.Ws.1 to 4 establish that R.W.1 is the son of the deceased Venkatarathnam. The dispute is with regard to the will. The evidence of R.W.4 shows that the deceased lived with petitioner No.1 till the year 2002 and thereafter, left the house of petitioner No.1 to the house of respondent No.1. According to him, whenever there was a quarrel between the deceased Venkatarathnam and petitioner No.1, the deceased Venkatarathnam used to stay in the house of respondent No.1. R.W.4 further speaks about petitioner No.1 and the deceased living together for about 25 years. Merely because there were some quarrels, that does not mean that the deceased was inimical towards petitioner Nos.1 to 4. 18. Insofar as the will – Ex.B-3 executed by the deceased Venkatarathnam in favour of respondent No.1 is concerned, the trial Court gave a finding doubting the execution of the will as R.Ws.2 and 3, who are the attestors of Ex.B-3, are not family members of the deceased and there is no evidence on record to show as to how they are connected with the deceased. The evidence of R.W.3 is to the effect that the deceased used to come to his shop and as such, he is acquainted with him. A perusal of the said will shows that the deceased gave one house to his second wife and another house under settlement deed to his son through first wife, who is respondent No.1 herein. The evidence of R.W.3 is to the effect that the deceased used to come to his shop and as such, he is acquainted with him. A perusal of the said will shows that the deceased gave one house to his second wife and another house under settlement deed to his son through first wife, who is respondent No.1 herein. When he gave one house to his second wife and another house to his son born through his first wife, bequeathing the G.P.F, insurance amount etc., entirely in favour of respondent No.1, without giving any shares to petitioner Nos.1 to 4, creates some suspicion over the very execution of the will, more so, having regard to the evidence of R.W.4, who speaks about the deceased living for sometime in the house of the petitioners and sometimes in the house of respondent No.1. Apart from that, it is also to be noted that the counter filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 shows that in the Service Register, the deceased Venkatarathnam has shown the petitioners and respondent No.1 as his family members. That being the position and having regard to the above circumstances, a doubt arises as to the execution of the will and the trial Court has rightly rejected the will. Taking into consideration the relationship between the parties and since the deceased himself gave one house to petitioner No.1 and another house to respondent No.1 and when an entry was made in the Service Register that the petitioners and respondent No.1 are the family members of the deceased, we feel that this is a fit case where the trial Court has rightly distributed the property equally to all of them. 19. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed confirming the order, dated 20.04.2007, in F.C.O.P.No.18 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court – cum – V Additional District Judge, Tirupati. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this appeal shall stand closed.