IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.8678 OF 2013 (GM-AC) BETWEEN:
1. Channamma W/o S.N. Keshava Murthy, Aged about 44 years, 2. S.K. Suguna D/o S.N. Keshava Murthy, Aged about 24 years, Both are R/at Sollepura Village, Kikkeri Hobli, K.R. Pete Taluk, Mandya District – 571 423. ... Petitioners (By Sri. Halesha R.G., Advocate) AND:
1. Smt. Lakshmidevi W/o late G.P. Rangaswamy @ Shankara, Aged about 32 years, R/o Goodehosahally Village, Kikkeri Hobli, Krishnarajapet Taluk, Mandya District – 571 423.
2. Shankara S/o Javaregowda, Age Major, R/o Krishnarajapet Taluk, Mandya District – 571 426.
3. The Branch Manager Bajaj Allianz General Ins., Co., Ltd., Srirangapatna Branch, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District – 571 438. …Respondents (By Sri P. Natarajan, Advocate for R-1 R-2 served but unrepresented V/o dated 24.03.2016 notice to R-3 dispensed with) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order dated 11.12.2012 passed on application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 in MVC No.106/2008, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, K.R. Pet vide Annexure-F and by allowing the said application of the petitioners.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R This writ petition is directed against the order dated 11.12.2012 (Annexure-F) passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, K.R. Pet on I.A. filed by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC in MVC No.106/2008, wherein the Tribunal has rejected the application.
2. Brief facts of the case are that one Rangaswamy died in the road traffic accident on 06.09.2008. His wife i.e., respondent No.1 herein and Rangaswamy’s mother Smt. Sharadamma have preferred the claim petition before the MACT, Channarayapatna in MVC No.110/2011. During the pendency of the claim petition, the deceased Rangaswamy’s mother Smt. Sharadamma expired. Immediately, the petitioners herein have filed impleading application in MVC No.110/2011 to implead themselves as legal representative of deceased-Sharadamma and said application was allowed. By order dated 02.11.2012, the Fast Track Court, Channarayapatna had disposed of the claim petition itself on the ground that the wife of the deceased has already filed a separate claim petition before the MACT, K.R. Pete in MVC No.106/2008 and reserving liberty to respondent No.1 (petitioner therein) to adjudicate the matter in pending MVC No.106/2008.
3. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed impleading application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC in MVC No.106/2008 pending before MACT, K.R. Pete. The said application was rejected by the Tribunal stating that the petitioners were not a Clause-I heirs as per Hindu Succession Act. They claimed on the basis of the Will dated 15.05.2009. The Will is against the law. Therefore, they cannot claim on the basis of the Will. The Tribunal has rightly rejected the application on the ground that as per the Hindu Succession Act, sister is not a Clause-I heir and similarly, petitioner No.2- daughter of petitioner No.1 is also not a legal heir. They are not dependents of deceased Rangaswamy. Therefore, there is no error in the order passed by the Tribunal and Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
[ Sd/- JUDGE MBM