Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1576 (AP)

Dsivisional Railway Manager, Vijayawada Division, SCR, Vijayawada v. Kattem Prashanth Kumari

2024-12-04

CHALLA GUNARANJAN, RAVI NATH TILHARI

body2024
JUDGMENT : RAVI NATH TILHARI, J. 1. This appeal was filed with CMA (SR) No.43696 of 2010 alongwith IA No.1 of 2010 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. After IA No.1 of 2010 was allowed condoning the delay, thePresent appeal was numbered as CMA No.715 of 2024. 2. Heard Sri Mallampalli Srinivas, learned Central Government Counsel for the appellants and Sri S. Raja Bhogendra Nath, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. No representation for respondent Nos.4 & 5. 3. The appellants have filed this appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The challenge is to the grant of Succession Certificate, vide order, dated 02.12.2009 in SAOP No.8 of 2008 on the file of the learnedPrincipal District Judge, Ongole, in favour of thePresent respondents, to an extent as in the said order,Partly allowing the saidPetition. 4. The SAOP No.8 of 2008 was filed by the respondents 1 to 3 herein, impleading the respondent Nos.4 & 5 and the appellants 1 & 2 herein (respondents 3 & 4 in SAOP). The succession certificate wasPrayed under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, in respect of a sum of Rs.5,74,048/- (P.F. Assets amount of Rs.3,09,385/-, C.G.I.S., amount of Rs.37,276/- D.C.R.G., amount of Rs.2,27,535/- and leave salary of Rs.302/-.) 5. The Parties shall be referred as in the Present appeal. 6. The respondent No.1 is the 2nd wife, the 2nd respondent is the daughter and the 3rd respondent is the son of late K.J. Prabhakara Rao, (an employee in South Central Railway, Gudivada), from the 2nd wife. The respondent Nos.4 & 5 are the children of K.J.Prabhakara Rao from his 1st wife. 7. The respondent Nos.4 & 5, (respondents 1 & 2 in SAOP), filed counter and inter alia denied the claim of the respondent Nos.1 to 3. They claimed that they were alone entitled to receive all the benefits. 8. All the respondents 1 to 5 referred to the OS No.8 of 1997 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada, between them and the award of the Lok Adalat, dated 30.06.2001 therein, which was filed as Ex.A1. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 also filed OS No.22 of 1999 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Chirala, adding respondent Nos.4 & 5, which was also settled and ended in dismissal on 04.08.2001. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 also filed OS No.22 of 1999 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Chirala, adding respondent Nos.4 & 5, which was also settled and ended in dismissal on 04.08.2001. The respondent Nos.4 & 5 filed EP No.78 of 2005 against the appellants and the appellantsPleaded that they were notParties in suits and the respondents shall obtain Succession Certificate. 9. The appellants filed their counter denying the claim, and inter alia submitting that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 did not submit anyProof in support of their claim for death benefits of the deceased employee. In respect to the Lok Adalat award, they submitted that they were notParty, so the said award was not binding on them. They also stated that asPer Rule 75(6)(iii) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 (in short as 'Pension Rules 1993') a daughter, who is either beyond 25 years of age or married is not entitled to the familyPension. TheyPrayed to dismiss thePetition for Succession Certificate. 10. The learnedPrincipal District Judge, Ongole, on thePleadings and submissions advanced framed the followingPoints for consideration : "1. Whether thePetitioners are entitled to Succession Certificate alongwith respondents 1 & 2 to recover the death-cum-service benefits of late K.J.Prabhakara Rao from R3 and R4, if so, to what amount and what share and with what observations ? 2. To what result ?" 11. The 1st respondent examined her asPW1 and filed the documents, marked as Exs.A1 to A15. 12. On behalf of the respondents 4 & 5, respondent No.4 was examined as RW1 and on behalf of the appellants, the department examined RW2-Yousuf Sheriff, Office Superintendent, South Central Railways, Vijayawada and also marked Exs.B1 to B3. 13. ThePoint No.1 was answered in affirmative. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence i.e., Exs.A7 to A15, it was observed that the award of the Lok Adalat, was admittedly arrived at, was valid and binding as decree of Court, the 2nd wife-1st respondent, was entitled for Succession Certificate. Thus considered, onPoint No.2, thePetition wasPartly allowed, granting Succession Certificate in favour of the respondent Nos.1 to 5. 14. Thus considered, onPoint No.2, thePetition wasPartly allowed, granting Succession Certificate in favour of the respondent Nos.1 to 5. 14. The operativePortion of the order, dated 02.12.2009- is reproduced as under : "ThePetition isPartly allowed granting Succession Certificate for the familyPension entitled by 1stPetitioner for the arrears ofPension after 01.07.2001 and on date of filing of S.O.P. subject toPayment of stamp duty for the amount being arrived by calling for from R3 and R4 to submit and for other benefits due by R3 and R4 as on date since those that are alreadyPaid to R1 and R2 on ascertaining theParticulars from R3 and R4 to engross by collection of stamp duty for grant of Succession Certificate in favour ofPetitioners 2 and 3 and respondents 1 and 2 each 1/4th. In the circumstances no costs. R3 and R4 are directed to submit theParticulars within one month from today." 15. Sri Mallampalli Srinivas, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the 1st respondent being the 2nd wife of the deceased employee, was legally not entitled for thePayment of the familyPension, for which, the Succession Certificate could not be granted. HePlaced reliance in the case of Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar and others, (2000) 2 SCC 431 . He alsoPlaced reliance in Rule 75(6) of thePension Rules, 1993 to contend that the 2nd wife is not entitled for familyPension. 16. Any argument with respect to the respondents 2 to 5 in whose favour also the Succession certificate has been granted, has not been raised, so as toPut challenge to the order under appeal. 17. Learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 submits that the Succession Certificate has legally been granted. There is no illegality in grant of Succession Certificate. He submits that the finding is based on the evidence on record, which clearly established the 1st respondent to be the 2nd wife. He further submits that Rule 75(6) of thePension Rules, 1993, is no bar to grant of familyPension to the 2nd wife. 18. We have considered the aforesaid submissions andPerused the material on record. 19. The followingPoint arises for our consideration and determination : "Whether the order of the learnedPrincipal District Judge, Ongole in granting the Succession Certificate, under challenge in this appeal, deserves to be maintained or deserves to be set aside ? 20. 18. We have considered the aforesaid submissions andPerused the material on record. 19. The followingPoint arises for our consideration and determination : "Whether the order of the learnedPrincipal District Judge, Ongole in granting the Succession Certificate, under challenge in this appeal, deserves to be maintained or deserves to be set aside ? 20. The submission of the learned Central Government Counsel is that the 2nd wife is not entitled for the grant of familyPension, and consequently, the Succession Certificate could also not be granted. But, as to why the 2nd wife (1st respondent) is not entitled, could not be argued. It has not been argued that the marriage of the 2nd wife with the deceased employee was during the continuance of his marriage with the 1st wife. It could not bePointed out from the counter-affidavit of the appellants filed in SAOP case that any such stand was taken before the learned Court. We have alsoPerused the counter of the appellant's filed in the succession case,Placed before us. There is only general denial of the contents of thePetition for Succession Certificate. It is not their case, that the marriage of 2nd wife was void. The learned Court considered the documentary evidence filed before it. It consisted of Exs.A7 to A15 including the Marriage Certificate, Voter Card, Voters List, House Hold Card, to show the 1st respondent is recorded as the wife of the deceased employee. The learned Court has also observed that they were living together since long, and two children (respondent Nos.2 & 3) were born. The 1st wife of K.J.Prabhakara Rao had died is not in dispute. So we do not find force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the respondent No.1 was not entitled for grant of Succession Certificate. 21. In Rameshwari Devi's case (supra), the 2nd marriage wasPerformed when the 1st wife was alive. It was held that the marriage being in contravention of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was void. Such is not the case here. No such case was set up here. The judgment in Rameshwari Devi's case (supra), therefore, has no application to the facts of this case. 22. It was held that the marriage being in contravention of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was void. Such is not the case here. No such case was set up here. The judgment in Rameshwari Devi's case (supra), therefore, has no application to the facts of this case. 22. Rule 75(6) of thePension Rules, 1993, upon which reliance has beenPlaced by the learned Counsel for the appellants is as under : "(6) ThePeriod for which familyPension isPayable shall be as follows : (i) in the case of a widow or widower, upto the date of death or remarriage, whichever is earlier, (ii) in the case of a son, until he attains the age of twenty five years, and (iii) in the case of an unmarried daughter, until she attains the age of twenty five years or until she gets married, whichever is earlier : Provided that if the son of daughters earlier way servant is suffering from any disorder or disability of mind orPhysically crippled or disabled so as to render him or her unable to earn a living even after attaining the age of twenty-five years, the familyPension shall bePayable of such son or daughter for life subject to the following conditions, namely : (a) the familyPension shall bePaid to such minor sons or daughters through the guardian on the basis of guardianship such minor so the guardian appointed by a Court : Provide that in respect of such sons or daughters who have attained the age of majority, it shall not be necessary to obtain guardianship certificate or appointment of a guardian by a Court either for grant continuance of familyPension to be sanctioned or continued to bePaid to them subject to satisfaction of other eligibility conditions, under these rules; (b) before allowing the familyPension for life to any such son or daughter, the sanctioning authority shall satisfy that the handicap is of such,Prevent him or her from earning his or her livelihood and the same shall be evidenced by a certificate obtained from a Medical Officer not below the rank of a Divisional Medical Officer setting out, as far asPossible, the exact mental orPhysical condition of the child; (c) thePerson receiving the familyPension as a guardian of such son or daughter shallProduce every three years a certificate from a Medical Officer not below the rank of Divisional Medical Officer to the effect that the son or daughter continues to suffer from disorder or disability of mind or continues to bePhysically crippled or disabled. 23. A reading of the above rule, does not show that the 2nd wife is not entitled for the familyPension. Rule 75(6)(i) specifically mentions "in the case of a widow or a widower, upto the date of death or remarriage, whichever is earlier". The 1st respondent herein being the 2nd wife, it cannot be said that she is not the widow and is not covered under Rule 75(6)(i) of thePension Rules, 1993. The 1st respondent being the widow, is also entitled under thePension Rules. 24. So far as the Lok Adalat award is concerned, that is an arrangement by compromise between thePersons entitled for the death benefits of the deceased employee. That would be binding on them. That may not be binding on the appellants, but they should have no concern with such arrangement made amongst thePersons entitled for the death benefits, inasmuch as, the appellants have to discharge their liability, by makingPayments under thePension Rules to 1st respondent andPursuant to the Succession Certificate issued by the learned Court. Only because of the award between the respondent Nos.1 to 5, in which, the appellants are notParties, they cannot take suchPlea to avoid their liability forPayment of familyPension to respondent No.1. 25. At this stage, we reproduce Section 381 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 : "381. Effect of certificate.-Subject to theProvisions of thisPart, the certificate of the District Judge shall, with respect to the debts and securities specified therein, be conclusive as against thePersons owing such debts or liable on such securities, and shall, notwithstanding any contravention of Section 370, or other defect, afford full indemnity to all suchPersons as regards allPayments made, or dealings had, in good faith in respect of such debts or securities to or with thePerson to whom the certificate was granted". 26. In Madhvi Amma Bhawani Amma and others v. KunjikuttyPillai MeenakshiPillai and others, (2000) 6 SCC 301 , the Hon'ble Apex Court after considering Section 381 of the Indian Succession Act observed and held that this certificate merely affords full indemnity to the debtor for thePayments he makes to thePerson holding such certificate. Thus when the debtorPays the debts or the securities as specified in the certificate, to the holder of such certificate, then on suchPayment, he is absolved from his obligation toPay to any one else as it conclusively concludes hisPart of his obligation and suchPayment is construed to be in good faith. Thus when the debtorPays the debts or the securities as specified in the certificate, to the holder of such certificate, then on suchPayment, he is absolved from his obligation toPay to any one else as it conclusively concludes hisPart of his obligation and suchPayment is construed to be in good faith. This safeguards such debtor orPerson liable toPay, that, he may not be later dragged into any litigation which may arise subsequently inter se between the claimants. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that the use of words "good faith" in Section 381 reinforces that decision in theseProceedings are not final. When statute recognizes suchPayment to be in good faith it gives clear under current message that there may be in future better claimant but that would not affect the indemnification of the debtor. 27.Para 14 of Madhvi Amma Bhawani Amma's case (supra), reads as under : "14. So, this certificate merely affords full indemnity to the debtor for thePayments he makes to thePerson holding such certificate. Thus when the debtorPays the debts or the securities as specified in the certificate, to the holder of such certificate, then on suchPayment, he is absolved from his obligation toPay to any one else as it conclusively concludes hisPart of his obligation and suchPayment is construed to be in good faith. This safeguards such debtor orPerson liable toPay that he may not be later dragged into any litigation which may arise subsequently inter se between the claimants. The use of words "good faith" in Section 381 reinforces that decision in theseProceedings are not final. When statute recognizes suchPayment to be in good faith gives clear under current message that there may in future better claimant but that would not affect the indemnification of the debtor. Thus we find accumulatively because of the grant of Succession Certificate being for a limitedPurpose, limited in its sphere, the declaration of title beingPrima facie,Payment tendered is declared to have been made in good faith, leads to only one conclusion that any decision made therein cannot be treated to be final adjudication of the rights of theParties, except such declaration being final for thePurpose of theseProceedings. If that be so, the amount received by the holder of such certificate can yet be questioned, and in subsequentProceeding it may bold it to belong to other claimant, including the contestingParty." 28. If that be so, the amount received by the holder of such certificate can yet be questioned, and in subsequentProceeding it may bold it to belong to other claimant, including the contestingParty." 28. Thus, it is well settled in law that thePayment to the holder of the Succession Ccertificate affords full immunity to the debtor. He is then absolved from his obligation toPay any one else. 29. We hold that the order of grant of Succession Certificate does not suffer from any illegality. It does not call for any interference in the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction. 30. The appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed. 31.Pursuant to our order, dated 13.11.2024, the appellants have deposited an amount of Rs.41,70,324/-, vide DD Bearing No.608282, dated 19.11.2024, in the name of the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of AndhraPradesh, asPer their calculation of the arrears of the familyPension,Payable to the 1st respondent, with the Registrar (Judicial) on 20.11.2024, subject to the orders to bePassed in this appeal. 32. In the order granting of Succession Certificate, the Court concernedProvided forPayment of the stamp duty. Consequently, if the stamp duty has not beenPaid the same shall bePaid by the respondent before the Court of thePrincipal District Judge, Ongole in SAOP No.8 of 2008 and the Succession Certificate shall be submitted to the appellant, which shall issue acknowledgement of its receipt to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent shall submitProof ofPayment of stamp duty and furnishing of the Succession Certificate to the appellants, before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, upon which the amount under Demand Draft, shall bePaid to the 1st respondent in her bank account, connected to her Aadhar card with due verification and identification of the 1st respondent who shall submit theProof of her bank account details, to the Registrar (Judicial). 33. If thePayment of stamp duty has not been made and the 1st respondent, for any reason, is not able toPay the stamp duty, as aforesaid, on her application to that effect if submitted, the Registrar (Judicial) shall get the amount of stamp duty ascertained in respect of the 1st respondent herein and such amount, after deducting from the amount deposited, shall be sent to thePrincipal District Judge, Ongole. The Succession Certificate shall be issued. The Succession Certificate shall be issued. Then, on compliance by the 1st respondent, with other conditions of filing it with the appellant etc., as mentioned inPara 32 (supra), the remaining amount shall bePaid to the respondent No.1 in the same manner as inPara 32 (supra). 34. It is clarified that the stamp duty would be for the amount for which the claim for Succession Certificate was filed by 1st respondent. 35. As the aforesaid exercise is bound to take some time, we direct the Registrar (Judicial) to withdraw the demand draft amount and invest the same in short term fixed deposit receipt in some Nationalized Bank,Preferably in the State Bank of India. 36. Learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that the 1st respondent is also entitled forPayment of interest on the amount of arrears of familyPension. They have filed a memo to that effect as well. This appeal is confined to the legality of the order under challenge. The respondents 1 to 3, if so advised, may take appropriateProceedings before appropriate forum for theirPrayer forPayment of interest. 37. No order as to costs. 38. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneousPetitions, if anyPending, shall also stand closed.