Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ranjit Kaur Wd/O Sardar Bhupendrasingh ... vs Bhagwant Kaur W/O Sardar Ishwar Singh ... on 6 November, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999(2)MPLJ348
JUDGMENT S.P. Srivastava, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved by the decree dated 25-3-1994, declaring the plaintiffs to be the successors-in-interest along with the defendant having one third share each in the properties left by Bhupendrapalsingh Mata, the deceased; the defendant has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the reversal of the decree passed by the trial Court.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant as well as the learned counsel representing the plaintiff-respondents, and have carefully perused the record.
3. The facts in brief shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this first appeal lie in a narrow compass. The plaintiff No. 1 is the mother of Bhupendrapalsingh Mata, since deceased and the plaintiff No. 2 is his daughter from his pre-deceased wife. The defendant is the second wife of Bhupendrapalsingh Mata who had died in an motor accident on 26-1-1985, while being posted as a Forest Range Officer in the employment of the State Government.
4. The suit giving rise to this appeal was filed on 16-4-1986, by the mother of the deceased, Bhupendrapalsingh Mata and his minor daughter aged about 4 years against Smt. Ranjit Kaur whom Bhupendrapalsingh Mata had married after the death of his first wife. The minor daughter, plaintiff No. 2 had filed the suit through a guardian and next friend, Sardar Ishwar Singh Mata, the father of the deceased, Bhupendrapalsingh Mata that is to say her grand-father. Ishwarsingh Mata, however, died during the pendency of the suit. Thereafter, vide the order dated 18-11-1991, the trial Court after hearing the counsel for the parties, appointed Anupinderpalsingh Mata, rejecting the objections of the present appellant who had prayed for her being appointed as guardian ad litem.
5. The plaintiffs had asserted that the plaintiff No. 2 was the daughter of the first wife of Bhupendrapalsingh Mata, Smt. Surinder Kaur who had died on 14-4-1981. Bhupendrapalsingh Mata had married the defendant in the year 1984, but he had no issue out of this wedlock. The plaintiffs claimed that together with the defendant they are heirs of the deceased, Bhupendrapalsingh Mata on whom his interest in the immovable and movable properties held by him had devolved in equal shares in accordance with the provisions contained in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1956). The plaintiffs, therefore, claimed that they together with the defendant were entitled to l/3rd share each being the heirs of the deceased falling in the category of Class I of the heirs specified under the provisions of the aforesaid Act since Bhupendrapalsingh Mata had died intestate.
6. The various properties movable and immovable which have been referred to in the plaint included the amount standing to the credit of Bhupendrapalsingh Mata at the time of his death in his General Provident Fund Account (hereinafter referred to as the G.P.F.).
7. In her written statement, the defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff No. 1, the mother of the deceased, Bhupendrapalsingh Mata on the ground that she had no right, title or interest therein asserting that she as well as the plaintiff No. 2, had already taken properties worth Rs. 6.00 lakhs owned by Bhupendrapalsingh Mata, the deceased. This assertion was based on the ground that whenever Bhupendrapalsingh Mata was transferred from one station to another, he gave his entire savings which was not less than Rs. 1,00,000/- to the plaintiff No. 1, his mother as well as father, Ishwar Singh. The defendant claimed that this amount was kept in deposit with these persons as being a Government servant, Bhupendrapalsingh Mata could not keep such a huge amount in an account in his own name.
8. Apart from the aforesaid amount, it was asserted that Bhupendrapalsingh Mata had kept jewellery made costing about Rs. 1,00,000/- which had been kept in the locker maintained by the plaintiff No. 1 in her own name in the bank. It was also asserted that Bhupendrapalsingh Mata used to keep all his income with the plaintiff No. 1, his mother and his father. It was also asserted that the ornaments belonging to the defendant were also kept with the plaintiff No. 1 and were still continuing to be in her possession. The aforesaid property was her stridhan and the plaintiffs could not get any interest therein.
9. The defendant raised various other pleas which indicated that she was entitled to the various amounts of money received by the plaintiff No. 1 from the deceased which she was not entitled to get and was wrongly withholding the payment thereof to the defendant. However, no counter claim has been set up in the written statement and no decree has been claimed on the basis of any counter claim.
10. It may be noticed that the defendant had moved an application on 15-3-1994, seeking recall of the order passed by the trial Court appointing Anupinderpalsingh Mata as the guardian and next friend of plaintiff No. 2 after the death of her grand-father, Ishwar Singh. In this application, it was asserted that the interest of Anupinderpalsingh Mata was adverse to the interest of the minor.
11. The aforesaid application has been disposed of by the trial Court under the impugned order after considering the facts and circumstances brought on record and holding that the claim of the defendant was absolutely false. It has been found that Anupinderpalsingh Mata was looking after the interest of the minor, plaintiff No. 2 and had no interest adverse to her.
12. The trial Court has further found that on the admitted and established facts, the plaintiffs along with the defendant had to be taken to be the heirs of Class-I of the schedule referred to in Section 8 of the Act of 1956, and interest of the deceased, Bhupendrapalsingh Mata had devolved on his death and they were entitled to succeed l/3rd share each in the properties left by the deceased. In the circumstances, the declaration sought for was granted declaring that the plaintiffs as well as the defendant being the successors-in- interest of the deceased, Bhupendrapalsingh Mata were entitled to l/3rd equal share in the properties left by him.
13. The learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously contended that the decree passed by the trial Court is vitiated in law as no guardian ad litem had been appointed for the minor plaintiff No. 2 in accordance with the provisions contained in the Order XXXII of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, which has rendered the entire decree as void ab initio. In this connection, suffice it to say that as has already been noticed hereinabove, the trial Court had on the death of Iswar Singh, the guardian and next friend through whom the plaintiff No. 2 had filed the suit, had vide its order dated 18-11-1991, appointed Anupinderpalsingh Mata as her guardian and next friend. This order had been passed after hearing the defendant. The application filed by the defendant seeking recall of the said order and praying for the appointment of a person other than Anupinderpalsingh Mata has been rejected by the trial Court after taking into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances.
14. The finding of the trial Court in the aforesaid connection is amply supported by the evidence and materials on the record and requires no interference. In any view of the matter, the plaintiff No. 2 has not chosen to question the decree passed in her favour and does not appear to be aggrieved by it. The defendant cannot be permitted to espouse the cause, if any of the plaintiff No. 2. At her instance, it seems to me, it is not possible to interfere with the decree passed by the trial Court on the ground that the interest of the plaintiff No. 2 got prejudiced on account of a defect in the appointment of a guardian ad litem. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in this connection is devoid of merit and is not at all acceptable.
15. The learned counsel for the appellant has next contended that the plaintiffs had also raised a claim in regard to the amount which stood to the credit of the deceased, Bhupendrapalsingh Mata in his G.P.F., account. The plaintiff No. 1, the mother of the deceased, Bhupendrapalsingh Mata, it is contended, could not be entitled to any share in the aforesaid amount in view of the provisions contained in the Madhya Pradesh General Provident Fund Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India which were in force at the relevant time. What has been contended is that the expression 'Family' as defined in the aforesaid rules specifically excludes the mother and as provided under Rule 31 of the aforesaid Rules, in the absence of a nomination, the amount lying to the credit of a subscriber, had to be paid to the members of his family as defined under the rules providing further that it shall not be payable to sons who have attained the legal majority or sons of a deceased son who have attained the legal majority, and the married daughters whose husbands are alive and married daughters of a deceased son whose husbands are alive, in case there is any member of the family other than the aforesaid persons.
16. What has been urged is that in view of the aforesaid clear cut provision, the mother of the deceased could not be entitled to have any share in the amount standing to the credit of the deceased, Bhupendrapalsingh Mata, in his G.P.F., account at the time of his death.
17. I have considered the above submission.
18. The definition of the term 'family' as provided under the Rule 2(c) of the Madhya Pradesh General Provident Fund Rules, is to the following effect:
"2.(1) In these rules-
(a)... ... ...
(b)... ... ...
(c) Family means-
(i) in the case of a male subscriber, the wife or wives and children of a subscriber, and the widow, or widows and children of a deceased son of the subscriber :
Provided that if a subscriber proves that his wife has been judicially separated from him or has ceased under the customary law of the community to which she belongs to be entitled to maintenance she shall henceforth be deemed to be no longer a member of the subscriber's family in matters to which these rules relate, unless the subscriber subsequently indicates by express notification in writing to the Accounts Officer that she shall Continue to be so regarded;
(ii) in the case of a female subscriber, the husband and children of the subscriber, and the widow or widows and children of a deceased son of the subscriber :
Provided that if a subscriber by notification in writing to the Accounts Officer expresses her desire to exclude her husband from her family, the husband shall henceforth be deemed to be no longer a member of the subscriber's family in matters to which these rules relate, unless the subscriber subsequently cancels formally in writing her notification excluding him.
Note 1-"Children" means legitimate children.
Note 2 - An adopted child shall be considered to be a child when the Account Officer or if any doubt arises in the mind of the Accounts Officer, the Law Secretary to the Government of Madhya Pradesh is satisfied that under the personal law of the subscriber, adoption is legally recognized as conferring the status of a natural child, but in this case only.
Note 3- When a person has given his child in adoption to another person, and if, under the personal law of the adopter, adoption is legally recognized as conferring the status of a natural child, such a child should, for the purposes of the Provident Fund Rules, be considered as excluded from the family of the natural father."
19. It may be noticed from the above, that the mother of a subscriber to the General Provident Fund account is not included in the expression 'family' as contemplated under the provisions of the aforesaid Rules.
20. The word 'family' is not a word of art but is a word of common parlance and is of an elastic nature. Broadly speaking it would include a person's wife, or husband, their children, parents, brothers and sisters living with him or her as members of a common household constituting a joint Hindu family, widowed daughter or her children, widowed sister, her children, deceased brother's wife, all being dependent upon him and living with him or her.
21. However, the quantitative contents of the term 'family' can be reduced and its limits fixed under a statutory provision.
22. The expression 'family' as contemplated under the Rules referred to hereinabove has been given a restrictive meaning excluding the mother of the deceased from the ambit of the term 'family'. So far as regards the efficiency and policy for providing a restrictive meaning to the term 'family', it is the legislature which is the only judge and its wisdom cannot be scanned. It is responsible to a Court of justice for the lawfulness of what it does and of that the Court is the only judge.
23. It is, therefore, obvious that the plaintiff No. 1 could not be treated to be at par with the defendant in the matter regarding entitlement to receive the amount lying to the credit of the deceased Bhupendrapalsingh Mata in the G.P.F., account maintained by him under the Rules in question which have statutory force.
24. Taking into consideration the provisions contained in the Rule 31 of the aforesaid Rules, there can be no escape from the conclusion that so far as the plaintiff No. 1, the mother of the deceased was concerned, she could not be held to have any right in the amount lying to the credit of the deceased employee, Bhupendrapalsingh Mata which had to be disbursed to the members of his family as envisaged under the Rules referred to hereinabove.
25. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances as brought on record, it seems to me that the finding returned by the trial Court to the effect that the plaintiffs as well as the defendant being heirs of Class-I of the schedule referred to in Section 8 of the Act of 1956, were entitled to succeed the right, title and interest of the deceased, Bhupendrapalsingh Mata in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, is liable to be affirmed subject to this modification that in spite of being so, the amount lying to the credit of the deceased, Bhupendrapalsingh Mata in his G.P.F., account could be disbursed to the members of his family only as envisaged under the aforesaid Rules in force at the time of his death.
26. No other point has been urged or pressed.
27. This appeal, therefore, succeeds in part, and the decree passed by the trial Court is modified only to this extent that the amount lying to the credit of the deceased, Bhupendrapalsingh Mata in his G.P.F. account has to be disbursed in accordance with the provisions contained in the Madhya Pradesh General Provident Fund Rules in force at the time of the death of the deceased employee wherein the plaintiff No. 1 will have no share at all. In other respects, the decree passed by the trial Court shall remain intact.
28. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.