Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Kaki Anjulamma And Anr. vs Ponugumati Koteswara Rao And Anr. on 16 November, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2005(1)ALD256, 2005(2)ALT634
Author: L. Narasimha Reddy
Bench: L. Narasimha Reddy
JUDGMENT L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. These two C.M.As. arise out of a common order dated 28.6.2002, passed by the Court of II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, in Succession O.P.Nos.426 of 1998 and 709 of 1998.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in C.M.A. No. 2227 of 2002.
3. Anjulamma, the first appellant, Terajamma, the second respondent, Santhamma and Karla Rayappa are the children of the same parents. The second appellant is the son of Karla Rayappa and the first respondent is the son of Terajamma, the second respondent. Santhamma was employed in the South Central Railway as Record Sorter. She died on 10.7.1998. Though she was married, her husband is said to have deserted her. She is said to have nominated the first respondent to receive her service benefits.
4. After the death of Santhamma, the appellants filed O.P. No. 426 of 1998, Under Sections 372 and 373 of the Indian Succession Act, for grant of succession certificate in respect of the amounts payable to Santhamma. Similarly, the first respondent herein filed O.P. No. 709 of 1998 for the same relief. Apart from pleading relationship with Santhamma, he claimed that Santhamma executed a Will (Ex.B-6) in his favour. Both the O.Ps were resisted by the parties herein. On behalf of the appellants, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-6 were marked.
5. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence before it, the Trial Court dismissed O.P. No. 426 of 1998. Though it recorded a finding that the Will-Ex.B-6 is not proved, it decreed O.P. No. 709 of 1998 and held that the first respondent is entitled to receive the service benefits of Santhamma. C.M.A. No. 2239 of 2002 is filed against the decree in O.P. No. 426 of 1998 and C.M.A. No. 2227 of 1998 is filed against the decree in O.P.No. 709 of 1998.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellants, Sri Venugopala Rao, submits that once the Trial Court disbelieved the Will-Ex.B-6, it ought to have directed distribution of the service benefits of late Santhamma in accordance with the law of succession and that there was no justification in permitting the first respondent alone to receive the benefits. He also submits that though the appellants flatly denied the allegations of the first respondent that he was adopted son of late Santhamma, the Trial Court proceeded as though there was no dispute about it.
7. Respondents 2 and 3 were served with notices, but they have not chosen to enter appearance. The South Central Railway is one of the respondents in C.M.A. No. 2239 of 1998. On their behalf, it is urged that having regard to the nature of dispute, the parties be required to seek a declaration from appropriate Court of law.
8. The relationship of the parties, as mentioned, above was not disputed by any one. While the appellants sought for issuance of succession certificate to enable themselves and other sister Terajamma to receive the service benefits of late Santhamma, the first respondent claimed the benefits exclusively for himself on the strength of a Will. Both the O.Ps were clubbed and common evidence was recorded. The Trial Court framed two points as under:
"(1) Whether the petitioners in O.P. No. 426/1998 are entitled to the Succession Certificate as prayed for?
(2) Whether the petitioner in O.P. No. 709/1998 who is the adopted son of late Santhamma is entitled for the Succession Certificate as prayed for?."
9. A perusal of the same discloses that no issue was framed on the validity of the Will-Ex.B-6 and the alleged adoption of the first respondent by late Santhamma was taken as undisputed. All the same, the Trial Court recorded a finding that Ex.B-6 is not proved. With that, the exclusive claim of the first respondent stood watered down. However, the Trial Court proceeded to observe that late Santhamma fostered the first respondent. In fact, that was not pleaded by any one. The first respondent pleaded in his O.P. that he was adopted, but the same was strongly denied by the appellants herein. The order under appeal does not disclose that any finding was recorded on that aspect. Therefore, the decree in O.P.No. 709 of 1998 enabling the first respondent alone to withdraw the service benefits of late Santhamma cannot be sustained.
10. In the matter of withdrawal of the benefits payable to deceased persons, be it on the basis of nomination or otherwise, the law of testamentary or intestate succession does not stand excluded. The nomination by the deceased enables the nominee to withdraw the amount from the employer or the insurance company, as the case may be. However, he shall be under obligation to distribute the same among the legal heirs or the legatees, or share with them as the case may be, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case, the will pleaded by the first respondent was held not proved. The fact that he was nominated by Santhamma enables him to withdraw the amount from the employer. However, he cannot appropriate the entire amount for himself to the exclusion of other legal heirs. The Trial Court did not undertake adjudication as to the entitlement of the various parties under the law of succession because of the fact that the scope of the proceedings before it is very limited. If the appellants intend to establish their rights, they have to seek a declaration before an appropriate Court of law, duly impleading all the necessary parties, including the respondents herein.
11. Therefore, it is held that the decree passed in O.P. No. 709 of 1998 shall enure to the benefit of the first respondent herein, for the limited purpose of withdrawing the amount, and not to appropriate the same to the exclusion of other legal heirs of Santhamma. The amount is said to be still with the Railways. To avoid further complications in the matter, it is observed that it shall be open to the appellants herein to file a suit for declaration as regards their entitlement to receive the said benefits, duly impleading all the necessary parties, including the respondents herein, and their entitlement to receive or share the service benefits of late Santhamma shall depend on the outcome of the same. The Respondent No. 2 in C.M.A. No. 2239 of 2002 is directed not to disburse the amount in question to any one for a period of two months from today. In the meanwhile, it shall be open to the appellants to obtain appropriate orders from the Court, in which they may file the suit. The appeals are allowed in part and the decree in O.P. No. 709 of 1998 shall stand modified to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.