Akkamma W/O Palaiah vs Meenakshamma W/O Late Suresh on 19 April, 2011

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Akkamma W/O Palaiah vs Meenakshamma W/O Late Suresh on 19 April, 2011

Bench: N.K.Patil, H.G.Ramesh

 " cH.AI,1.A1'~:E;§E

M,§',A.N0$?'4L;3? 2008

   

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA A371' BAEGALORE
DATE!) THIS THE 19*" DAY OF APRIL 2011

PRESENT

TH}: HONBLE MR. JUSTXCE N.K.PAfl.1'I{L  . "7  .

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE 1i§s3.iaA'MEs'x§.%A' - . ~. "  A T

M.F.A.No.7457/2095119  A    
BETWEEN:  " A'

AKKAMMA W/C) PALAIAH

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

R/O CIrIETRAiANAHA'?"[Y

CHALLAKERE 1     

CHETRADiERGA nleisffr. 5;"  .. 1     APPE.ZLLAN'T

{BY SR: D.R.NAGARgg.3;z§.' A:§V<)ti;5:.i*.<:,)A"   

AND:

1 .MIe:z«:NAKsHAMMA, vm  L,.+'\'fP;3 $:iRE$H
AGED AiB_OU'.I.'3(J~.YEARS, . " "
R/O HO¥JSIN(3 BDALF-§DV€O1JO§\§Y

 A._cH;*rRA;:3UR(;A'V:>Is.1'R1c?i{W

21' Lﬁ?££1 iN=s:;;§2A;:C:+'_.;V "cj.:<>RmRAY1"*1(>N OF ENDIA
BY 11:3 BRAE\§CEfi-- __MANA(}ER,

  {':HALi_._._{«\KERE? B'RA§\ECH.

% _ , <:!~}_A1,1,AKERI§~5'?7 522

TYAGARAJAV NAGAR

. . .RESPGNDEN'§.'S

 :33; V"x";1K7..i§£{}S.I*1A(}§RI RAG & ESM'§'.N.GEE'.}.'HA'

"gxDvoCA't'E.<5 FOR R2;

%   .E\E()'E"£CEZ 12:) R: ES D:S:~>:«:N$E13 WETH

' we D'§.'.27.0?,2GO9)



M. l%'.A.N0.?'4i»5'? 5 2008

Tiwllf-3 M.l*'.P; IE5 F'§I'..Ell3* U,/ES. 4?'{l} OF THE? CEUAREFIANS
ANQ \7V,é%RE)S EEC'/71." AGAINS'E' 'l'l-{Ii JU§)GE\/lEN'l' E)z'§'l'El) 4.4.2098

l?'ASSEiD IN G <31. 'W' CASE N032,/2{)O?' ON THE? FILE OF 'I'HE';__
CEVIL JUDGI-Z, {-E3R.D'N.)§ {Ll"'l.AI,l.AK}3RE, R§§;J'f§(3'I7lN{} '§'Eé.'E 
§'E'E"'l'13ON FlLE'£) UfS.7 OF TE-£l;'Z CEUARDEAN ANEB XVARDS A€',«"l'L;    _

'l'P-IE8 MFA comma ON ma ADiviiSs1'0N '1'ij1_i~:¥: 5:j;a§zf',;*--« *' 

N.K.PA'I'IL J. Dl*ZLlV'ERED THE F€)§,-LOVVINCE:

JUDGMENi

This appeal is direei,ed»l~against:  i1f¥.l.pe1g1'i€df~ 

Judgment dated 4.420083  in ﬂﬁeaeie

Fﬂlg/2007,CHL€hC fﬁejeﬁihe {ﬁve Sudga gsatnii

Challakere.

2. The ,o"1ilj,z__ l?:'.ie;réL:i:g:.§§ t;l'1el'vieari1ed Counsel for
the appellvan-ivisV"ihaf'€;h;e a_i_:§peliér1t..,i11€<:i an application for
app0int.meni:"2is  'minor wards on acczount of

untimely dee{th_Vl0f PlS1ii*eSh_;'.."'xarh0 is the son of appellant,

" ':9 receiiie  Vli'1Sl,l'l:éiI}§}§3"&1II}O1iI1l of Rs.30,000/~ on behalf

lei" I7lV'lli"'1('.)r}I""v__VV.7'\%'~Ei:l"f'.T1".'._"al .011 the ground that deceased had

  abtéiineci ah'--V"ins%-furarlee policty from the Life ln.sura'riee

 C_orperai;i<j¥i3._ of India and nominated the first respondeiib

 _ wife Viiythe said lI1SL11'ai'iC€ policy. but the wile of the

V"'i_._"§:lecteasecl has E¥.bSC(}i"1Cl€'d 8: left. the miner wanfls alorie

 _ 4"3zncl ihzit, her whereabeiite size not 1{{--i{}x:&7?£/it 'l'he seiiel

'$3.. "WWW ' V M,



I'./§;F.A.NO.74§?§'2008

21ppii.eai.i<>:1 had came up far »::0:1$:;der.ai,i0:3 beifere the itriai

Ceurt. The t.1"i.e11 Ceurii '&--'i7E{.I'EO{1T. E1SSig§.niI1'§_.{ va.ii_d re21s0;*;;';--._»

rejeeteel the Said appiiezmcm eimiiig Ehai a1_ppe§1a;;::_"*h;$i.'e:W.

.1101. placed. any 111at,eria1 to show ihaf insurance {f'@_;npariy A

is "ready to setzle the policy a1m_c'jtz1j't'«e\}<€r1.;<1,19:'uugh'~7

P,Suresh has eommitied suicide 2u1d7.ia'1"-the abs_,ef;ee~ GE"

such materiial, the <::ou.rt was n0i'\"€;§1i.si"ief.ih 
property in exis1.er1ce for be
appeinteci as min0rV  maturity
amount of late"   by the
Judgment .":i:"<~3i t«":.3rzeeessitated to file

this appeei. T 

3. WeVV"have  11_e'é11fd*'  learned Counsel for the

. e.g;ppe1v1.»e§§1t;Ve£11d 1e:§{r11e:d_ Cdunsei for the respondems.

  perusal of the impugned judgment,

2  whai; ~--..4__§,vo1_.:-id:  3;e:%1e1'ge is that the Court below has

" '.-1'iJ' <__eer;1mitted__ terror in rejecting the applicatiora filed by the

 _ei'ppe1E.;{ii£. under Seeiiiien 7' of the Guardian ('$1 Warde Act,

'"=.x«=gf§:{_?:m,1i aeségning valid reason. The appellant is the

" g:'and~mether ef the minor w21.rd€s and miner xvards are



3.V§.§*".A. N0."?4i3?'

 

uI1ci€.r 15161?' (:are z-mci cussmdy and 't:h.a'1;. Ci€(,'.€Z'iS§€d P,Suresh_

was ;'3.<:3r.1e: {ﬁber 'i§:ha11 her sen. The Court: beéiaw oughi. t'<5"--_

have Eaken a judicial n.0t,£:' Of Lhasa §'21«Ca.s and consicigréiéi 

the appiiCat'i0zL {.0 rraeet the ends <)fjusE,i(:e.  %

the application oniy on i.e<:h11i(:;ﬁ gé*<,:.:I';.d  *1";o_t"'

sustainable. I""£e_r1ce, we are of ihe §:@n§si.dere(i.I1o;ji'1f1i'0ni .

that the matter is requ_ired r<;%maI1 %Ci'c;§~E0. t.hé"t.fi§«,1}  
reconsider the said applicggiiiori inivfiieéﬁiing
the Life Insurance VC0I'p01:'§1V1:.Vl"ﬁ%A1}   of ihe
respondents, Acn:_:'o'19:'}€f1gl_y£3._xve:L   order,

The apﬁejal The impugned Judgemerzﬁt p_3S$Vé(V1 in G 81 W case No.2/2007, em%1h¢%'%%::%:eTgg;%;1;%.e cm: Judge, (Sr.Dn.), Chailakere, ill; .1j1 6:reby "'I;_'1?1"e ;n1attér.__$t eL11ds remitted back to the Civil J't;dg€:;_._{S5r:_Dr1;E,. Challéiiiére, 19 recon.sid«:=.r the zzppiicatmn 3;{r'e3s.h" -3n_d__ pé;;ss"'a_I'de'rs in aceordarme with lava, aﬁer afﬂf;1*d£%1g§ to both the parties and to dispose V V' 3f the €:«21se___21;~3.e3§{pt:*dit,i01::§ly as possible but not iai,:':r than m{3:'1 _t %1s. The appelianf is p<~31'm.i*:,:,€d EC} fiie ._z1'é§:;r:%ssL:':;1jy a.pp1i{::a1iio.r1 b<:'<:[}:>1*e 11716 Ccisurii below :0 impiead gs

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

Akkamma W/O Palaiah vs Meenakshamma W/O Late Suresh on 19 April, 2011

Bench: N.K.Patil, H.G.Ramesh