Karnataka High Court
Deepa Vishwanathan vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 9 September, 2025
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:35409
MFA No. 7994 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 768 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7994 OF 2024 (CPC)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 768 OF 2025 (CPC)
IN MFA NO.7994/2024:
BETWEEN:
1. MS. UPASANA RAGHU
D/O ASHA K.S. @ ASHA RAGHU
ALSO D/O LATE K.C.RAGHU
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
RESIDING AT APRATMENT
NO.201, 2ND FLOOR,
KALPATARU RENAISSANCE
6TH MAIN, 9TH CROSS
MALLESHWARAM
Digitally signed by BENGALURU-560003.
RAMYA D
Location: HIGH ...APPELLANT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. KASHINATH J.D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. DEEPA VISHWANATHAN
W/O LATE K.C. RAGHU
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
2. MS. SINDHU RAGHU
W/O LATE K.C. RAGHU
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:35409
MFA No. 7994 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 768 of 2025
HC-KAR
RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 ARE
RESIDING AT OAK - A1201
GODREJ WOODSMAN ESTATE
BELLARY ROAD,
HEBBALA KEMPAPURA
BENGALURU-560024.
3. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
A STATUTORY CORPORATION REGISTREED
UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE LIC ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTEED OFFICE
AT YOGAKSHEMA, J.B.MARG,
NARIMAN POINT,
MUBMAI-4000215.
REPRESEBTED BY ITS
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
4. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
UNITED INDIA BUILDING
1ST FLOOR, CITY BRANCH-611
J.C.ROAD, BENGALRU-562157
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH KUMAR D., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. RAJESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.12.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.4
IN O.S.NO.2856/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, (CCH-13), ALLOWING IA
NO.4 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:35409
MFA No. 7994 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 768 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN MFA NO.768/2025:
BETWEEN:
1. DEEPA VISHWANATHAN
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
W/O LATE K.C. RAGHU
2. SINDHU RAGHU
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
D/O LATE K C RAGHU
BOTH ARE
RESIDING AT NO.OAK-A1201
GODREJ WOODSMAN ESTATE
BELLARY ROAD
HEBBALA, KEMPAPURA
BENGALURU-560 024.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH KUMAR D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
A STAUTORY CORPORATION REGISTERED
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE LIC ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT YOGAKSHEMA, J.B. MARG
NARIMAN POINT
MUMBAI- 4000215
REPRESENTED BY ITS
BOARD OF DIORECTORS.
2. LIFE INSURANE CORPORATION OF INDIA
UNITED INDIA BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR
CITY BRANCH -611, J.C.ROAD
BANGALORE -562 157
RERESENTED BY ITS
SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:35409
MFA No. 7994 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 768 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. UPASANA RAHU
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
D/O ASHA K.S.,
RESIDING AT APARTMENT
NO.201, 2ND FLOOR
KALPATARU RENAISANCE
6TH MAIN, 9TH CROSS
MALLESHWARAMA,
BENGALURU -560003.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. KASHINATH J.D., ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF
CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.12.2024 PASSED ON
I.A. NO.4 IN O.S.NO.2856/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE V
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY (CCH-13), ALLOWING THE I.A. NO.4
FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. M.F.A.No.7994/2024 is filed by the defendant No.3 calling in question the order passed on I.A.No.4 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure in O.S.No.2856/2024 pending on the file of V Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, an order of temporary -5- NC: 2025:KHC:35409 MFA No. 7994 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 768 of 2025 HC-KAR injunction is granted with a condition that the 3rd defendant shall deposit Rs.4,00,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores only) to the Court account within 30 days received from the defendant No.2 upon the death claim of late K.C.Raghu accrued under insurance policy No.607405885.
2. M.F.A.No.768/2025 is filed by the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 calling in question the order passed on I.A.No.4 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure in O.S.No.2856/2024 pending on the file of V Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, being aggrieved only so far as the order at clause 3 of the operation portion giving liberty to defendant No.3 to receive the interest accrued on the amount under the policy.
3. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for permanent injunction directing the defendant No.3 to release the death claim under the policy No.607405885 of late K.C.Raghu for an amount of Rs.4,00,00,000/- and for other reliefs.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:35409 MFA No. 7994 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 768 of 2025 HC-KAR
4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are the wife and daughter of one late K.C.Raghu. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the mother of the defendant No.3 was an ex-employee under K.C.Raghu which he was running a firm and therefore, not related to anywhere else to the plaintiffs and late K.C.Raghu. It is the case of defendant No.3 that she is the daughter of late K.C.Raghu through her mother Asha.K.S. It is the case of the defendant No.3 that the said K.C.Raghu during his life time has purchased a policy bearing No.607405885 for insuring an amount of Rs.4,00,00,000/- and made defendant No.3 as a beneficial nominee. Therefore, it is dispute between the plaintiffs and defendant No.3 that the plaintiffs are prima facie wife and daughter of late K.C.Raghu whereas the defendant No.3 is daughter of late K.C.Raghu and Asha.K.S by virtue of nominee found in the said policy No.607405885, the defendant No.3 had putforth her claim to claim the insurance amount of Rs.4,00,00,000/- to the plaintiffs -7- NC: 2025:KHC:35409 MFA No. 7994 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 768 of 2025 HC-KAR No.1 and 2 but claiming that she is the daughter and made as beneficial nominee in the said policy. This is objected by the plaintiffs, but in the mean time, the defendants/Life Insurance Corporation of India have released the said amount of Rs.4,00,00,000/- to the account of defendant No.3, then, the plaintiffs have filed the suit for mandatory injunction seeking direction to defendant No.3 to release the amount in favour of plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for order of temporary injunction directing the defendant No.3 to deposit an amount of Rs.4,00,00,000/- received for claim under the policy No.607405885 before the Court till disposal of the suit.
5. The Trial Court after considering the rival claim on the interlocutory application has allowed the application I.A.No.4 with a certain directions that directing the 3rd defendant shall deposit an amount of Rs.4,00,00,000/- to the Court account received from the defendant No.2 in -8- NC: 2025:KHC:35409 MFA No. 7994 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 768 of 2025 HC-KAR respect of death claim of late K.C.Raghu under the above said policy and also liberty has ordered reserving liberty to the defendant No.3 to receive the interest accrued on the amount of Rs.4,00,00,000/- on quarterly basis from the date of deposit till disposal of the suit.
6. The defendant No.3 has filed the above appeal being aggrieved by the portion of order of temporary injunction issuing direction to defendant No.3 to deposit sum of Rs.4,00,00,000/- to the account of Court. The plaintiffs have filed the above appeal being aggrieved so far as reserving liberty to defendant No.3 to receive the interest accrued on the amount of Rs.4,00,00,000/-.
7. Heard arguments from both sides and perused the materials furnished in the appeals.
8. The following points arises for consideration of this Court are:
i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiffs make out prima facie -9- NC: 2025:KHC:35409 MFA No. 7994 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 768 of 2025 HC-KAR case on the basis of the materials produced before the trial court?
ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiffs make out case of balance of convenience on the basis of the materials produced before the trial court so as to grant an order of temporary injunction?
(iii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, if an order of temporary injunction is not granted then plaintiffs would suffer any irreparable loss or injury?
9. The sum and substance of the submissions made by the defendant No.3 is that she is the daughter of late K.C.Raghu through the mother K.S.Asha and is the only legal heir and late K.C.Raghu during his life time has purchased the policy and sum assured is Rs.4,00,00,000/- and the defendant No.3 is made as a beneficial nominee, hence as per Section 39 of the Insurance Act, defendant No.3 alone is entitled to receive the amount of assured sum under the policy. It is submitted that when the plaintiffs have filed the suit, claimed to be the wife and
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35409 MFA No. 7994 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 768 of 2025 HC-KAR daughter of late K.C.Raghu, the suit is only for the relief mandatory injunction is not maintainable, but plaintiffs ought to have filed comprehensive suit to declare that they are wife and daughter, but not filed the same. Hence, the suit is not maintainable. Therefore, submitted that when the suit is not maintainable, order of temporary injunction could not have been granted, but granted the same. Therefore, prays to set-aside the order of temporary injunction.
10. Learned counsel for appellant has placed reliance on the judgments in case of Smt.Shwetha Singh Huria & Others in R.F.A.No.310/2020 of High Court of Delhi dated 18.05.2021, Karam Sirisha V/s Insurance Regulatory Development authority in W.P.No.26730/2021 of High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 22.11.2022, Mallela Manimala V/s Mallella Lakshmi Padmavathi in W.P.No.19310/2021 of High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 15.03.2023, K.R.Sakthi Murugeswari V/s The Divisional Manager in W.P(MD)
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35409 MFA No. 7994 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 768 of 2025 HC-KAR No.11044/2021 of High Court of Madras (Madhurai Bench) dated 16.10.2023, Smt.Yashodha V/s Smt.Rashmi.J in R.F.A.No.2010/2023 of High Court of Karnataka dated 27.11.2023, Santhosh Huria V/s Shweta Singh Huria & Ors in S.L.P.No.16806/2021 of Supreme Court of India dated 08.11.2021, Smt.Annapurna V/s Kavita in R.F.A.No.100004/2025 of High Court of Karnataka dated 22.01.2025, Smt.Neelavva V/s Smt.Chandravva in R.F.A.No.100471/2023 of High Court of Karnataka dated 20.02.2025, Priya V/s Meena in W.P.No.240/2024 dated 18.07.2025, Sarbati Devi & Others V/s Usha Devi reported in (1984) 1 SCC 424, Anathula Sudhakar V/s P.Buchi Reddy case reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594, Jharkhand State Housing Board V/s Didar Singh & Another case reported in (2019) 17 SCC 692, Makers Development Services V/s M.Visvesvaraya Industrial Research and Development case reported in (2012) 1 SCC 735,
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35409 MFA No. 7994 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 768 of 2025 HC-KAR Annaimuthu Thevar V/s Alagammal & other case reported in (2005) 6 SCC 202, Mohd, Mehtb Khan & Others V/s Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan & Others case reported in (2013) 9 SCC 221 and also relied upon the judgment in case of K.R.Sakthi Murugeswari V/s The Divisional Manager and another in W.P.(MD).No.11044/2021 of Madras High Court dated 16.10.2023, Mallela Manimala V/s Mallella Lakshmi Padmavathi in W.P.No.19310/2021 dated 15.03.2023.
11. The sum and substance of the submission made by the plaintiffs that plaintiff No.1 is legally wedded wife of K.C.Raghu and plaintiff No.2 is daughter of plaintiff No.1 and K.C.Raghu and hence, they are all entitled to receive the sum assured under the policy. He places reliance on some documents. He places reliance on the various judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court. It is submitted that when the plaintiffs are wife and daughter of late K.C.Raghu, they are also entitled to receive the sum assured in the policy and defendant No.3 is stranger to the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35409 MFA No. 7994 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 768 of 2025 HC-KAR family of plaintiffs and K.C.Raghu and when this being the question involved, the Trial Court is correct in granting temporary injunction directing the defendant No.3 to deposit the amount in the Court account.
12. Further submitted that the provisions of Section 39 of Insurance Act are not having overriding effect on the law of succession. Further submitted that the Trial Court committed an error in reserving liberty to the defendant No.3 to receive interest accrued on the sum assured under the policy and therefore, prayed to set-aside this portion of the order passed by the Trial Court. He places reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court and this Court. 13. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 has placed reliance on the judgments in case of Smt.Sarbati Devi & Another V/s Smt.Usha Dewvi reported in (1984) 1 SCC 424, Ram Chander Talwar and Another V/s Devender Kumar Talwar and Others reported in (2010) 10 SCC 671, Smt.Yashoda V/s Smt.Rashmi.J & Others in R.F.A.No.2010/2023 of
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35409 MFA No. 7994 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 768 of 2025 HC-KAR High Court of Karnataka dated 27.11.2023, Smt.Laxmibai & Others V/s Shrikant Hanamappa Chalavadi and others in M.F.A.No.101529/2021 of High Court of Karnataka dated 11.07.2023, Smt.Annapurna V/s Kavita & Others in R.F.A.No.100004/2025 of High Court of Karnataka dated 22.01.2025, Smt.Neelavva @ Neelamma V/s Smt.Chandravva @ Chandrakala @ Hema and others in R.F.A.No.100471/2023 of High Court of Karnataka dated 20.02.2025 and judgment of Apex Court reported in (2003) 10 Supreme Court Cases 38 in case of NDMC V/s Satish Chand (Deceased) by LR. Ram Chand dated 11.09.2003,
14. Upon considering the averments made in the plaint and written statements and application, it is the dispute between plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and defendant No.3 to make claim over the sum assured under the assured policy made by late K.C.Raghu during his life time. The plaintiffs are claiming to be legally wedded wife and
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35409 MFA No. 7994 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 768 of 2025 HC-KAR daughter of the K.C.Raghu, rivalry the defendant No.3 is claming that she is the daughter of K.C.Raghu through her mother Asha.K.S. Therefore, this is rival dispute claiming legal heirship and based on it, they are making claim over the sum assured under the insurance policy. There is an amendment made to Section 39 of the Insurance Act, as per sub-section 7 of Section 39 of the Act, the defendant No.3 is claiming that she is the beneficial nominee, therefore, the defendant No.3 alone is entitled to receive the said amount as the deceased K.C.Raghu had nominated her as a beneficial nominee excluding the plaintiffs. Therefore, the defendant No.3 argued by placing reliance on the various judgments of the High Court of Madras, Delhi and Bombay and Supreme Court which are all pertaining to making interpretation of the provisions of Section 39 of the Insurance Act. At this stage, the question to consider is whether the plaintiffs have made out prima facie case that to grant temporary injunction on the settled principle of law. The Trial Court has observed
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35409 MFA No. 7994 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 768 of 2025 HC-KAR that there is a rival claim of legal heirs and triable issue since plaintiff No.1 and 2 are claiming that they are the only legal heirs of late K.C.Raghu and if the sum assured under the policy is released in favour of defendant No.3 then that would cause more injury to the plaintiffs and irreparable loss. Therefore, upon the considering the contentions, the Trial Court granted order of temporary injunction.
15. When considering this appeal, this is only on the basis of the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. Interpretation regarding beneficial nominee and collective nominee is not necessary in this interlocutory stage that would be the tasks of trial in the suit before the Trial Court on the facts, circumstances and evidence. This Court in catena of decisions held that the provision of Section 39 does not have overriding effect on the law of succession governing succession.
16. Learned counsel for the defendant No.3 has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35409 MFA No. 7994 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 768 of 2025 HC-KAR of Madras, but this Court in the co-ordinate bench in the case R.F.A.No.10047/2023 has explained the interpretation made by the Trial Court is that sub-section 7 of Section 39 of the Act has overriding effect on the law of succession is plausible interpretation. The Court is of the opinion based on the judgment of co-ordinate bench of this Court in R.F.A.No.10047/2023 in case of Smt.Neelavva @ Neelamma V/s Smt. Chandravva @ Chandrakala @ Hema's and other, in R.F.A.No.2010/2023 in case of Smt.Yashodha V/s Smt. Rashmi.J's case, in M.F.A.No.101529/2021 in case of Smt.Laxmibai and others V/s Shrikant Hanamappa Chalvadi and others and in R.F.A.No.100004/2025 in case of Smt.Annapurna V/s Kavita and others (authored by me) referred supra, sub- section 7 of the Section 39 of the Act does not have overriding effect on the law of succession. In the present case, there is a rival dispute between plaintiffs on the one side and other side to make claim towards the sum
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35409 MFA No. 7994 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 768 of 2025 HC-KAR assured under the policy on basis of the legal heirship. When this ground is raised, the plaintiffs are claimed to be legally wedded wife and daughter of late K.C.Raghu. There is no need to file comprehensive suit for plaintiffs to make declaration. When they are claiming that they are legally wedded wife and daughter of late K.C.Raghu and whether non filing of comprehensive suit by the plaintiffs is threatened, in the present suit, the question has to be considered during the trial. Therefore, at this stage, there is no ground made out by the defendant No.3 that the instant suit is not maintainable. When there is a rival claim regarding claiming of the sum assured under the policy and legal heirs of late K.C.Raghu and if the sum assured under the policy is released in favour of defendant No.3 then the plaintiffs will be put into loss and injury. If the said amount is released to the defendant No.3 then it is difficult for the plaintiffs to recover the amount in case if the suit is decreed. Therefore, the Trial Court is correct in directing the defendant No.3 to deposit to the Court
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35409 MFA No. 7994 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 768 of 2025 HC-KAR account till the disposal of the suit. Therefore, so far as this direction is concerned, order of temporary injunction is correct and no need of interference, thus, the appeal by the defendant No.3 is liable to be dismissed by answering the point Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative.
17. So far as the direction No.3 in the operative portion in the order that reserving liberty to the defendant No.3 to receive interest is concerned, it needs modification. Here the plaintiff No.2 is also claiming to be daughter of K.C.Raghu and defendant No.3 is also claming to be daughter of K.C.Raghu. Though the defendant No.3 is minor, but as rival claim of the parties that both are daughters, then reserving liberty exclusively to defendant No.3 to receive the entire interest accrued thereon is not correct as both daughters are entitled to receive interest accrued on the said amount of Rs.4,00,00,000/- equally, to this extent, the clause 3 in the operative portion of the order is modified. Therefore, the appeal filed by the plaintiffs is allowed in part.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35409 MFA No. 7994 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 768 of 2025 HC-KAR
18. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) M.F.A.No.7994/2024 filed by the defendant No.3/appellant challenging the order dated 06.12.2024 passed on I.A.No.4 in O.S.No.2856/2024 on the file of V Addl. City Civil Judge at Bangalore City is dismissed.
ii) M.F.A.No.768/2024 filed by the plaintiffs/appellants challenging the order dated 06.12.2024 passed on I.A.No.4 in O.S.No.2856/2024 on the file of V Addl.
City Civil Judge at Bangalore City is allowed in part.
iii) The order dated 06.12.2024 passed on I.A.No.4 in O.S.No.2856/2024 on the file of V Addl. City Civil Judge at Bangalore City Procedure is hereby modified issuing direction to defendant No.3 to deposit an amount of Rs.4,00,00,000/- within 3 months which has been received from
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35409
MFA No. 7994 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 768 of 2025
HC-KAR
defendant No.2 in respect of policy
insured by late K.C.Raghu under policy No.607405885 and set-aside the orders so far as liberty is reserved to both the plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.3 to receive interest equally accrued on the amount of Rs.4,00,00,000/- on quarterly basis till disposal of the suit.
iv) The defendant No.3 is directed to deposit sum of Rs.4,00,00,000/- sum assured under policy No.607405885 to the account of Court in which the suit is pending within a period of three months from the date of this order.
Sd/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34