IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.3215/2014 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SIDDAGANGAMMA W/O LATE MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 2. M DHANUSH S/O LATE MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS 3. M ANUSH S/O LATE MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS SINCE THE PETITIONER NO.3 IS MINOR REP. BY HIS MOTHER AS A NATURAL GUARDIAN BY THE PETITIONER NO.1, SMT. SIDDAGANGAMMA W/O LATE MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT BEHIND JMFC COURT GUTTAHALLI LAYOUT PAVAGADA TOWN PAVAGADA TALUK TUMKUR DIST 561 202 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI L HARISH KUMAR, ADV. ) AND:
1. THE THASILDAR PAVAGADA TALUK PAVAGADA TUMKUR DIST - 561 202 2. BHAGYAMMA @ LAKSHMIDEVI W/O GOVINDAPPA AGED 40 YEARS 3. KARTHIK S/O GOVINDAPPA AGED 17 YEARS 4. BRUNDA D/O GOVINDAPPA AGED 13 YEARS REP. NO.3 AND 4 ARE MINOR REP. BY THEIR MOTHER AS A NATURAL GUARDIAN BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 BHAGYAMMA @ LAKSHMIDEVI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS W/O GOVINDAPPA RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 4 ARE R/AT BOVI COLONY Y N HOSAKOTE TOWN TUMKUR DIST - 561 202 AND ALSO AT NO.142(A) RAJESHWARINAGAR WEST (KETAHYYA NAGAR) INDIRANAGAR, 5TH CROSS TO 8TH CROSS, BELLARY TOWN & DIST. - 583103 5. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR VETERNARY HOSPITAL PAVAGADA TOWN TUMKUR DIST. - 561 202 (BY SRI KIRAN KUMAR T L, AGA. FOR R1 & 5 ... RESPONDENTS NOTICE TO R2, R3 & R4 SERVED, BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH ANNEX-C, THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 28.10.2013 ISSUED BY THE R1 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE ENTRIES OF THE NAME OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 4 AS SERIAL NO.1 TO 3 IS CONCERNED IN PAGE NO.3 OF THE SAID IMPUGNED ORDER.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioners are before this Court assailing the Official Memorandum dated 28.10.2013 at Annexure-C to the petition. The petitioners in that light are seeking mandamus to direct the first respondent to give all the statutory benefits and pension to the petitioners within a specific period.
2. The petitioner No.1 claims to be the wife of late Manjunath, while the petitioners No.2 and 3 claim to be his sons. Presently, respondent No.1 through the impugned order dated 28.10.2013 has indicated respondent No.2 as the wife and also respondents No.3 and 4 as children of late Manjunath in the order dated 28.10.2013. The petitioners in that light claiming to be aggrieved by the same are before this Court since according to the petitioners, respondent No.1 does not have the jurisdiction to decide the legal representatives of the deceased person. In that regard, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely on the decision of this Court in the case of Basavanni Shankar Ammanagi vs. Keshavva and others (ILR 2002 Kar 581) to contend that in case of disputes regarding succession between the contending parties, the Tahsildar is not competent to decide as to who are the legal heirs of the deceased, but can be adjudicated only in a Court of Competent Civil Jurisdiction. In that light, there can be no dispute with regard to the legal position as enunciated therein.
3. In that background, a perusal of the order impugned dated 28.10.2013 would disclose that in fact the petitioners herein had filed proceedings in P & SC No.3/2013. The contention that was put forth by respondents No.2 to 4 in the proceedings before the Tahsildar is that the succession certificate issued therein had been appealed against.
4. Be that as it may, when the jurisdiction of the Competent Court has been invoked and in that proceedings the rights of the parties to claim as legal representatives/heirs and also the benefits is to be decided, the said order in any event would bind the parties for the said purpose. Therefore in that circumstance, the order dated 28.10.2013 in any event cannot confer any right based on the conclusion that has been reached by respondent No.1 with regard to the heirship as claimed therein. In that view, it is ordered that the conclusion of respondent No.1 dated 28.10.2013 shall not be taken note by any of the competent authority more particularly by respondent No.5, who shall await the decision of the Court of Competent Civil jurisdiction and shall only proceed based on the order that would be passed by a competent Court and thereafter disburse the benefits or provide any other relief to the parties in that regard.
In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE akc/bms