IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT C.R.P.No.157/2012 BETWEEN:
1. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA W/O LATE SEENAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 2. KUM.C S JYOTHI D/O LATE SEENAPPA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS BOTH ARE R/O GAJALADINNE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI KOLAR TALUK-562100. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI.M NARAYANAPPA, ADV.) AND:
1. SMT. VENKATAMMA W/O LATE SEENAPPA (DISPUTED) AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 2. SRI BABU S/O LATE SEENAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS 3. SMT. AMBIKA D/O LATE SEENAPPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS 4. SMT. RADHIKA D/O LATE SEENAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS ALL ARE R/O KOGILAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI KOLAR TALUK-562 100.
5. THE MEDICAL OFFICER DISTRICT T.B. CENTRE SNR HOSPITAL COMPOUND KOLAR-562 100.
6. THE MANAGER M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPRN. OF INDIA LTD., KOLAR BRANCH KOLAR-562 100.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.S N ASWATHNARAYANA, ADV. FOR R2 TO R4 R1-R2 TO R4 ARE TREATED AS LR'S OF DECEASED R1 SMT.M.GEETHA, HCGP. FOR R5 SRI.S.M.GAJENDRAN, ADV. FOR R6 ) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDERS, CONFIRMING THE ORDERS DATED M.A.NO.22/2010 DATED 03/02/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE C/C OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND P & SC.NO.3/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM., KOLAR DATED 09/08/2008 DISMISSING THE PETITION.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioners are before this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘the CPC’) assailing the judgment and decree dated 03.02.2012 passed in M.A.No.22/2010 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Kolar, and the order dated 09.08.2008 passed in P & SC No.3/2008 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Kolar.
2. The petitioners filed P & SC No.3/2008 under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, praying for declaration that the 1st petitioner is the wife of deceased Seenappa and to declare that the 2nd petitioner is the daughter through the 1st petitioner and for grant of Succession Certificate to receive the death benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the 1st petitioner claims that she married one Seenappa at Tirupathi in the year 1992 and 2nd petitioner is the daughter of late Seenappa through the 1st petitioner. It is stated that they lived together at Gajaladinne. The 2nd petitioner is born in the year 1993 at SNR Hospital, Kolar. The said Seenappa was working as driver with the 5th respondent - District T.B. Center, Kolar. Seenappa died while in service on 10.12.2007. The petitioners being wife and daughter are entitled for service benefits and as such they filed a petition for grant of succession certificate. Respondent No.1 is stated to be legally wedded wife of late Seenappa and respondent Nos.2 to 4 are children born to Seenappa and 1st respondent. The petitioner examined herself as PW.1 and examined the record keeper of R L Jalappa Hospital as PW-2 and marked the documents Exs.P1 to P22 in support of her case. Respondent No.2 examined himself as RW.1 and First Division Assistant belonging to TB Hospital, Kolar, was examined as RW.2. The trial Court on examination of material on record both oral and documentary dismissed the petition. Challenging the said order the petitioners herein filed appeal in MA.No.22/2010 before the II Addl. District Judge, Kolar. After notice to the parties, the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the learned Trail Judge. Aggrieved by both the orders, petitioners are before this Court in this petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4 and 6 and learned HCGP for respondent No.5. Perused the petition papers.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 1st petitioner married Seenappa at Thirupathy in the year 1991 and out of their wedlock 2nd petitioner was born on 19.5.1993 at SNR Hospital, Kolar. It is his submission that sufficient material is produced to show that the 1st petitioner is the legally wedded wife and 2nd petitioner is the daughter of late Seenappa and 1st petitioner. The said Seenappa was in service working in 5th respondent - District T.B. Center. Learned counsel invites attention of this Court to the finding of the trial Court that the 1st petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the said late Seenappa but not the first wife. Hence he submits that the petitioners would be entitled for service benefits of late Seenappa.
6. Per contra, the Learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 submits that the petitioners have admitted that 1st respondent is the legally wedded first wife of late Seenappa and respondents 2 to 4 are the children of Seenappa and 1st respondent. As the 1st respondent was the first wife of late Seenappa, service benefits were granted to the 1st respondent and compassionate appointment was extended to 2nd respondent.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the orders under challenge, I am of the view, that the orders would not suffer either from perversity or erroneousness so as to call for interference. The 1st petitioner claims that she is the legally wedded wife of late Seenappa, no documents whatsoever to indicate that she is the legally wedded wife is produced before the Court. The documents produced in support of her case are that the SSLC marks card of the 2nd petitioner, voters list, LIC premium copy, ID Card of the hospital wherein it is stated that name of Seenappa is shown as husband of 1st petitioner. Further in the SSLC marks card of the 2nd petitioner, that her father’s name is shown as Seenappa. Therefore, she claims that she is the legally wedded wife. Those documents, which indicate the name of Seenappa in voters list or ID card of Hospital or LIC premium copy would not prove the marriage of the 1st petitioner with Seenappa. No independent witness to say that the 1st petitioner married Seenappa are examined. The 1st petitioner has only given a statement without there being any supporting material. The 1st petitioner in her evidence had stated that late Seenappa had purchased property in the joint name of Seenappa and 1st petitioner. But the said sale deed is not produced before the Court. The trial Court has observed that photographs are produced without negatives. Hence the Court was not in a position to look into those photographs. It is apparent on perusal of the records that the 1st petitioner has failed to prove the marriage. The material on record would only show that the 1st petitioner at the most could be second wife of late Seenappa. As there is no material to show that the 1st petitioner was the first wife, both the Courts have rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioners. No material either oral or documentary evidence is produced to substantiate the claim of the 1st petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE NG*/CT:bms