Bangalore District Court
Mrs. Nirmala W/O. Late Narayana @ ... vs Mrs.Ramadevi 2Nd Wife Of Late Naryana @ on 23 December, 2021
IN THE COURT OF XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU (CCH-22)
Present: Smt. Suvarna K. Mirji, B.Com., LL.B.(Spl).,
XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU.
OS No.25389/2017
Dated this 23rd day of December 2021
Plaintiff:- 1. Mrs. Nirmala W/o. Late Narayana @ Narayanappa,
Aged about 46 years,
2. Mrs. Baby N, aged about 28 years.
3. Mrs. Anitha N, Aged about 27 years,
4. Kumari. Nethra.N, Aged about 26 years,
5. Mr. Manjunath N, Aged about 24 years,
No.2 to 5 children of late Narayana @ Narayanappa,
All are residing at No.143, 7th cross,
Ashwathnagar, Marathahalli, Bangalore 37.
(Rep by Sri. K.N. Somaiah, Advocate)
V/S
Defendants:- 1. Mrs.Ramadevi 2nd Wife of Late Naryana @
Narayanappa, Aged about 43 years,
2. Ms.Vijaya, Aged about 21 years,
3. Mrs.Manasa, Aged about 19 years,
No.2 & 3 are claimed to be the children of
Narayana @ Narayanappa,
All are R/at.No.54, Poojappa building,
2
Judgment OS.No.25389/2017
Old Church road, 1st main,
1st cross, Marathahalli, Bangalore 37.
4. The Division Controller,
BMTC, East Division,
Shanthinagara, Bangalore.
5. Depot Manager, BMTC,
Depot No.18, Near ITPL,
Bangalore 66.
6. The Labour Officer, BMTC,
Shanthinagar, Bengaluru 27.
(D1 to 3 by Sri. K.S.N.R., Advo, D4 to 6: Sri R.E.M., Advo)
Date of Institution of the suit 07/02/2012
Nature of the (Suit or pro-note, suit
for declaration and possession, suit Probat & Succession Certificate
for injunction, etc.)
Date of the commencement of recording
of the Evidence.
11/02/2019
Date on which the Judgment was
23/12/2021
pronounced
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
09 10 16
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
MAYOHALL UNIT: BENGALURU.
3
Judgment OS.No.25389/2017
:JUDGMENT:
That plaintiffs/ petitioners filed P&SC No.25211/2012 against defendants/ respondents for issue of Probat and Succession Certificate. The order sheet dated:25/03/2017 at this case discloses petitioner counsel submits that he has paid court since there is dispute between the parties and to covert the petition into suit and decide the controversy between parties by framing issues, then this court passed order converting P&SC case in to original suit as there is controversy between the parties and ordered for register of case as original suit and then said P&SC No.25011/2012 is converted and registered as OS.No.25389/2017 i.e. present suit. But petitioners of P&SC case not amended in petition as plaintiffs, hence petitioners/plaintiffs and respondents/defendats is referred in the further discussion.
2. The brief facts of plaint/petition averments is as under: 4
Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 The petitioners/plaintiffs submit that petitioner No.1/ plaintiff No.1 is legally wedded wife of late Narayana @Narayanappa. Their marriage was solemnized according to Hindu customs and traditions on 17/01/1980 at Someshwara Ganesha Temple, Old Madras road, Halasuru, Bangalore. The petitioners No.2 to 5/plaintiff No.2 to 5 are born out of their lawful wedlock. All are constituted Hindu joint family of Mithakshara school of law. The plaintiffs/petitioners and deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa were staying together until death of Narayanappa. That deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa was working as a driver in the office of 3 to 6 in depot No.18 and his token No.002866. He was suffering from heart problem. Hence the said Narayana @ Narayanappa took voluntary retirement. After retirement and also before the same the petitioners served him day and night. When his heart problem was severe the petitioners/plaintiffs admitted him in M.S. Ramaiah Medical Teaching Hospital and all the expenses borne 5 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 by the petitioners. That all of sudden Narayana @ Narayanappa expired on 04/11/2011 due to cardiac arrest. After his death petitioners/plaintiffs looked after his death ceremony and also 11 th day ceremony. All the expenses were borne by the petitioners/plaintiffs. That after death of Narayana @ Narayanappa the petitioner No.1/plaintiff No.1 approached office of the defendants No.4 to 6/respondent No.4 to 6 to claim all the benefits of deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa and pension and she is legally entitle for the same. In the mean time defendants No.4 to 6/respondent No.4 to 6 asked plaintiff No.1/petitioner No.1 to produce clearance certificate under form No.182. She contacted the necessary department of BMTC for the said Form No.182 and presented the same before office of defendants No.4 to 6/respondents No.4 to 6. She was surprise to know that name of respondent No.1 has been entered as nominee in service record of deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa and also department mentioned that defendant No.1/respondent No.1 is entitle for 6 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 benefits of deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa as per the records and defendants No.4 to 6/respondent No.4 to 6 refused to release benefits and pension of deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa in favour of petitioner No.1/plaintiff No.1. That they made several representation before office of defendants No.4 to 6/respondent No.4 to 6 but they totally failed to release all benefits as well as pension of deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa in favour of petitioner No.1/plaintiff No.1. Further they are unable to give particulars of benefits available in their office in the name of deceased of Narayana @ Narayanappa and they acted rudely without furnishing any details and refused to release benefits, but defendants No.4 to 6/respondent No.4 to 6 eager to release all benefits along with pension in favour of defendant No.1/respondent No.1. They are playing under her tune by neglecting the rules and regulations.
3. The petitioners/plaintiffs further submits that without any other alternative and also to stop immediate release of all benefits 7 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 including pension petitioners/plaintiffs got issued legal notice on 31/01/2012 against defendants No.4 to 6/respondents No.4 to 6 and also against defendant No.1/respondent No.1. Apart from this the petitioners/plaintiffs personally tried to serve said legal notice but respondent No.4 to 6/defendants No.4 to 6 refused to receive the same. Hence the petitioners/plaintiffs also sent notice along with copies of documents by register post. Even then defendants No.4 to 6/respondents failed to stop to release said benefits and pension and made all arrangements to release the same in favour of respondent No.1/defendant No.1. That they produced the marriage invitation, photos and group photos of Narayanappa along with petitioners, ESI card, election identification card of all the petitioners, LIC bond of petitioner No.1/plaintiff No.1 to prove that she is legally wedded wife of Narayana @ Narayanappa, payment receipt of LIC along with transfer certificate of petitioner No.2 to 5/plaintiffs No.2 to 5 and their election identification card and voter list. All the records discloses 8 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 that the petitioner No.1/plaintiff No.1 is legally wedded wife and petitioner No.2 to 6/plaintiffs No.2 to 5 are born out of their lawful wedlock. But respondent No.4 to 6 refused to accept the same. The act of respondent No.4 to 6/defendants No.4 to 6 is illegal and against law and natural justice. That when the petitioner No.1/plaintiff No.1 alive the question of marrying respondent No.1/defendant No.1 does not arise. The said marriage is illegal and against the law and natural justice. The respondent No.1/defendant No.1 has no legal status to claim all the benefits and pension of deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa. Even though name of respondent No.1/defendant No.1 entered in service records as nominee the records maintained by respondents No.4 to 6/defendants No.4 to 6, which is illegal on that basis respondents No.4 to 6/defendants No.4 to 6 have no right to release all benefits as aforesaid in favour of respondent No.1/defendant No.1 and respondent No.1/defendant No.1 is not entitle for the same. The petitioner No.1/plaintiff No.1 is legally 9 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 wedded wife and their marriage was solemnized on 17/01/1980 in Bangalore, the petitioners No.2 to 6/plaintiffs No.2 to 6 are born out of their lawful wedlock. Until to death Narayana @ Naryanappa was staying with petitioners and he died intestate on 04/11/2011 in Bangalore and his death ceremony and 11 day ceremony was performed by the petitioners/plaintiffs. Before that the petitioners/plaintiffs carried out all medical expenses of deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa from the date of he fell ill. Hence petitioner No.1/plaintiff No.1 is legally entitled to draw and obtain all benefits of deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa including pension. Further any one of petitioners No.2 to 6/ plaintiffs No.2 to 6 are entitle for appointment in the office of respondents No.4 to 6/defendants No.4 to 6 on compensatory ground. That all efforts made by plaintiffs/petitioners to claim all benefits of deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa and also to draw pension ended in vain. Now the petitioners have no other alternative except approach court. The plaintiffs No.2 to 6/ 10 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 petitioners No.2 to 6 have no objection to grant succession certificate in favour of the petitioner No.1.
4. The petitioners further submits that respondents No.1 to 3 have no moral or legal right to claim any such benefits or pension of deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa but with the support of defendants No.4 to 6/respondents No.4 to 6 they made all arrangements to claim all the benefits. The cause of action for the petition arose on 17/01/1980 from date of marriage of respondent No.1/defendant No.1 with deceased Narayana @ Naraynappa, 04/11/2011 from the date of death of Narayana @ Narayanappa, on 29/09/2011 from the date of clearance form No.182 when the petitioners came to know the name of respondent No.1/defendant No.1 entered as nominee in the service record and on 31/01/2012 from the date of legal notice subsequently within the jurisdiction of this Court. The respondents No.4 to 6/defendants No.4 to 6 made all arrangements to release all benefits including pension in favour of the respondent No.1/defendant No.1. The act of 11 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 respondents No.4 to 6/defendants No.4 to 6 is illegal and against the law and natural justice. The illegal activities of the respondent No.4 to 6/defendants No.4 to 6 has to be stayed by granting an order of temporary injunction for which the petitioners filed separate application. Until order of this Court the benefits shall not be released for fair adjudication of the issue. That the deceased Narayanappa was staying in Bangalore in the above said address and was working in B.M.T.C in Bangalore, he died in Bangalore and his death ceremony and 11 th day ceremony performed in Bangalore, hence this court have jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The petitioners/plaintiffs pray to grant succession certificate in favour of petitioner No.1/plaintiff No.1 to draw all the benefits including P.F and pension and award cost of the petition.
5. The respondent No.1, defendant No.1 filed objection to the petition of P&SC of petitioners and same is adopted by respondents No.2 and 3. The respondent No.1 denied all the 12 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 allegations of petition. The petition is also not maintainable both in law and on facts and hence the same is liable to be rejected in limine. The allegations made at para 3 of the petition stating that petitioner No.1 is legally wedded wife of late Narayana @ Narayanappa and their marriage was solemnized according to Hindu customs and Traditions on 17/01/1980 at Someshwara Ganesha Temple, old madras Road, Ulsoor, Bengaluru-560 008 is false. The further allegations made in para 4 of petition that petitioners No.2 to 5 are born out of their lawful wedlock is false. It is further false that they constituted Hindu Joint Family of Mithakshara School of Law and further allegation that the petitioners and deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa were staying together until the death of Narayanappa is false. The averments made at para-5 of petition that deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa was working as driver in the office of the 3 to 6 in Depot No.18 under Token No.002866 is true. The allegation that he was suffering from heart problem and he took voluntary 13 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 retirement is incorrect statement. The further allegation that after retirement and before retirement the deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa was got admitted by the petitioners for his heart problem at M.S.Ramaiah Medical Teaching Hospital and expenses of the same came to be borne out by petitioners are all false. It is fact that Narayana @ Narayanappa died on 04/11/2011 but the reason given for the death by the petitioners are all incorrect and so also it is incorrect say that the petitioners met the expenses of the same. The entire allegations made at para-7 of petition are false. The further allegations made at para-8 that she contacted the necessary department of BMTC for the said Form No.1 & 2 presented the same on the same day respondents No.4 to 6 is false. It is further false that she was shocked and surprised to know that name of respondent No.1 has been entered as nominee in the service records of the deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa and also the department mentioned that respondent No.1 is entitle for benefits of deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa 14 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 as per the records maintained by respondents No.4 to 6 and also refused to release benefit pension of deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa is correct. On the part of respondents No.4 to 6 it is respondent No.1 is legally wedded wife of deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa and respondents No.2 and 3 are children born to the wedlock of the deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa with the respondent No.1. When the true facts is that of the relationship of deceased Narayana @ Narayanappawith that of respondent No.1 it cannot be said as surprise to petitioners. So whatever answer the respondents No.4 to 6 gave to petitioners when they approached them to release the benefit accrued to the credit of the deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa shall have to go over to respondents No.1 to 3 alone and not to that of the petitioners. The petitioners have nothing to do with family of deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa, respondents No.1 to 3 are wife and children of deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa. The respondent No.1 further submits that the petitioners giving several 15 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 representations to respondents No.4 to 6 and failed to get the benefit accrued to service conditions of deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa is only futile exercise on their part as they have nothing to do with deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa. The rest of the allegations made at para-9 of petition are all false.
6. The respondent No.1 further submits that the allegations made at para-10 stating that petitioners got issued legal notice dated 31/01/2012 against respondent No.1 is incorrect. The allegations petition paras No.10 and 11 are false. The respondent No.1 submits when there is no relationship of husband and wife and when there is no legal married that happened between the first petitioner and deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa the claim of petitioner No.1 when she is still alive deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa could not have not been taken respondent No.1 as his wife does not survive for consideration. When the respondent No.1 is lawfully wedded wife of the deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa and the children born out of such wedlock as 16 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 respondents No.2 and 3 cannot be called illegal and also cannot also be said that no legal status has been attached to the marriage. It is the respondent No.1 and respondents No.2 & 3 are only entitle to take all the monitory benefits including that of the pension of the deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa as they are only the clause-1 heirs of the Hindu Succession Act and as such except them no one else including the petitioners can have no say over the same, nor can their claim. In all the Service Records maintained by employer of the deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa it is only name of respondent No.1 and that of respondents No2 and 3 are found the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation is undertaking of the Government of Karnataka all the records maintained by it in reference to its employees it will weigh more than that of the alleged documents fabricated by the petitioner which have been referred to at para-11 are to be ignored. The respondents No.4 to 6 are bound to act as per the Service Records of the Deceased Narayana @ 17 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 Narayanappa and release the amount which has accrued to the service benefits of the deceased in favour of Respondents No.1 to 3 only and it is they are only entitle to have the benefit of the same. In this connection the first respondent is produces the various documents which clearly shows and indicates that she is the legally wedded wife of and the Respondents No.2 and 3 are the children born of out of the wedlock with that records and also other documents including death certificate issued by the BBMP it has been clearly shown that deceased Narayanappa was residing with respondents No.1 to 3 at No.54, Poojappa Building, Old Church Road, I., Main, 1st Cross, Marathahalli, Bangalore- 560037 at the time of his death. This fact is quite contrary to the averments made by the petitioners in this petition. From this it is crystal clear that petitioners No.1 to 3 are trying to knock off the monitory benefits accrued that of service of deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa from theat of the legal heirs of his who are none other than respondents No.1 to 3.
18
Judgment OS.No.25389/2017
7. The respondent No.1 further submits that the allegations made at para-13 of the petition that petitioner No.1 is married with deceased Narayana @ Naraynappa on 17/01/1980 in Bangalore and petitioners No.2 to 6 are born out of their lawful wedlock and deceased was also living with the petitioners as on 04/11/2011, and the death ceremony was performed by the petitioners are all self serving testimony of the petitioners to file the present petition. It is false that even before the death of Narayana @ Narayanappa petitioners spent the medical expenses as such they are legally entitle to the service benefits of deceased Narayanappa are all incorrect statement. The Petitioner No.1 is not wife of deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa the question of her claiming the appointment on compassionate ground with the employer of the deceased also would not arise for consideration. The petitioners No.1 to 3 have no relationship either of marital status or of any other status with that of the deceased 19 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 Narayanappa their claim to have the benefit of the monitory benefit of the deceased also would not arise for consideration at all. The rest of the allegations made at para-14 and allegations of para 15 of petition are false. The petitioners have no cause of action to approach court for their alleged redressal for reason that except respondents No.1 to 3 the petitioners have no connection whatsoever with that of the deceased Narayana. The entire allegations made in para 17 and 18 are all false. The defendants No.1/respondents No.1 prays to dismiss the petition with costs.
8. The defendants No.4 to 6/respondents No.4 to 6 filed written statement objection submitting that petition filed by petitioners/plaintiffs is not maintainable either in law or on facts same is liable be dismissed in limine. It is false that petitioners/plaintiffs are legal heirs of late Narayana @ Narayanappa. As per the service conditions employees are not permitted to marry second time during the subsistence of earlier 20 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 valid marriage. The entire averments made in the said para are false and incorrect except the relationship of defendants No.1 to 3/respondents No.1 to 3 with said Narayana. The deceased Narayana was appointed as driver on probation for two years on 03/11/1980 and his services are confirmed on 04/12/1982, in the BTS division of the KSRTC. When he has joined in the Corporation in service he has nominated his wife Ramadevi and the particulars of his family is mentioned Ramadevi his wife, and children N.Baby, N.Anitha. N,Nethravethi, Manjunath, Vijayakumar and Manasa to receive Provident fund contributions and in which he has declared Ramadevi as his wife.
9. The defendants No.4 to 6/respondents No.4 to 6 further submits that he was in services of defendant No.4 /respondent No.4, he has applied for voluntary retirement contending that he is suffering from severe refractory error along with diabetics hypertension and complications like cardiomyopathy and early nephropathe on 28/09/2012 and in which he has nominated 21 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 Ramadevi his wife for all benefits. There is no change in the said nomination. The petitioner No.1/plaintiff No.1 has made an application seeking to give monetary benefits due to death of her husband Narayana @ Narayanappa while in service. After considering the entire records respondents/defendants have issued endorsement dated 29/02/2012 stating that deceased employee Narayana has nominated the respondent No.1 as his wife for all the monetary benefits and in view of the same the amount cannot be disbursed in her favour. It is true that the petitioner No.1 has submitted LIC policy, ESI Card, Voters identity cards, Transfer certificate, marriage invitation card, photos etc. and further contended that her marriage with Narayana was solemnized on 17/01/1980. But in the nomination made on 03/11/1980 deceased Narayana has declared as Ramadevi as his wife. The petition is not properly valued and no proper court fee is paid on the plaint. Since the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 is legally wedded wife of deceased and as she is nominee and entitle to receive monetary 22 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 benefits under law. The petition is not properly valued and no proper relief is sought for the preliminary issue regarding court fee and valuation has to be frame and decided. The defendants No.4 to 6/respondents No.4 to 6 prays to dismiss the petition/suit with costs.
10. On the basis of above pleadings following Issues are framed:
:ISSUES:
(1) Whether the petitioner No.1 proves that she is the legally wedded wife of Late Narayana @ Narayanappa and their marriage was solemnized on 17/01/1980 and petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are born out of their lawful wedlock?
(2) Whether the petitioners prove that respondent Nos.1 to 3 have no moral or legal right to claim benefits/pension or deceased?23
Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 (3) Whether the petitioners proves that they are entitled to the relief's as sought for in the plaint?
(4) Whether the respondent No.1 proves that she is the legally wedded wife of deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa and Respondents No.2 & 3 are their children?
(5) Whether respondent Nos.1 to 3 proves that they are entitled to have benefits of deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa?
(6) What order or decree?
11. The plaintiff No.1 examined as PW.1 and marked ExP1 to ExP34. The defendant No.2 examined as DW.1 and marked ExD1 to Ex41. The respondents No.4 to 6/defendants No.4 to 6 have not examined and not marked documents.
12. The plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 3 counsel argued and the defendants No.4 to 6 counsel not argued. Perused the records. 24
Judgment OS.No.25389/2017
13. My findings to the above Issues are as under:-
Issue No.1: In Negative Issue No.2: In Negative Issue No.3: In Negative Issue No.4: In Affirmative Issue No.5: In Affirmative Issue No.6: See final order for following:
:REASONS:
14. Issues No.1 to 5:
The plaintiff No.1 Nirmala W/o Late Narayana @ Narayanappa filed her affidavit in lieu of examination in chief as PW.1 and deposed the evidence that she is the legally wedded wife of late Narayana @ Narayanappa. Their marriage was solemnized on 17/01/1980 according to Hindu customs at Someshwara & Ganesha Temple, Halasuru, Bangalore. Out of their lawful wed lock 4 children are born, now all are majors. They constituted Hindu joint family of Mithkshara School of law and staying together comfortable without any dispute or 25 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 differences. Her husband put all the children to the school by paying donations, school fee etc., all of them are totally depended upon her deceased husband to eke livelihood. She is home maker and have no other sources of income, her children are studying and totally depended upon her deceased husband Narayana @ Naraynappa. That her husband was working as a driver in the office of defendants No.4 & 6 in Depot No.84. The department gave him the token No.002866. When he was in service he was suffering from diabetic, heart problem, etc., hence he took voluntary retirement and stayed with them. Due to severe chest pain they admitted him in M.S. Ramaiah Hospital where therein they were looking after him comfortably by paying all the hospital charges. That when he was under treatment all of a sudden due to the cardiac arrest he expired on 04/11/2011. She being his legally wedded wife performed all the rituals like, death ceremony, 11th ceremony and other rites. As per the customs pindodaka was completed by her as per the advice of elders, kiths 26 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 & kin. That after completion of all the rituals of her deceased husband her children and herself approached office of defendants No.5 & 6. Where her husband was working to claim all the benefits and his dues of salary, PF and other benefits available requested to provide an appointment to her children for their subsistence on compensation ground. In the beginning they agreed for the same and asked her to furnish clearance certificate of her deceased husband under Form No.182 and asked her to approach their office after a week. That as per the demand of defendants No.5 & 6 she furnished all the particulars.
15. The PW.1 further deposed evidence that after verifying all the records department refused to release the benefits of her husband available in their office, they disclosed that in the service record of her husband the name of Ramadevi has been mentioned and also disclosed that she also made counter claim on the benefits, hence the department asked her to approach the competent Court and get necessary orders to release the benefits 27 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 of her deceased husband and to provide employment to her children. That without any other relief she filed a petition P&SC.No.25011/12 against all the defendants U/s 371 & 372 of Indian Succession Act seeking for succession certificate to claim all the benefits of her husband and claim for an appoint to her son in the office of respondents No.4 & 5 for their subsistence. In the said petition the respondents No.1 to 3 duly appeared and filed their untenable objection. But respondents No.4 to 5 not filed any objection. Then said petition converted as original suit in OS.No.25389/17. The status of the parties changed as plaintiffs and defendants. In the previous petition as well in the above suit the defendants failed to produce any material documents to disprove her claim. That to prove her claim and also to prove that she is legally wedded wife furnished the marriage invitation, marriage photo group photos of the family ESI card election identification card, LIC bond along with school certificate, marks card & TC of her children. In all the records my has been entered 28 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 as his wife and in all school certificate her husband's name has been mentioned as father but defendants No.4 to 6 due to the lack of legal knowledge failed to release the benefits of her deceased husband in her favour. That defendants No.4 to 6 jointly and collectively filed their objection without any materials but they duly admitted that when she was alive question of 2 nd marriage does not arise and also they explained that the defendant No.1 and her children not legally entitled to claim the benefits of her deceased husband and they are not legally entitled to claim an appoint to her children on compensate ground. But defendants No.4 to 6 kept silent without releasing the benefits of her husband in her favour.
16. The PW.1 further deposed the evidence that as per law when she is alive the question of marrying defendant No.1 does not arise, the said marriage is illegal against the law and natural justice, the defendant No.1 has no legal status to claim as his wife. Further as claimed by the defendant No.1 her children has 29 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 no legal status to claim any benefits as his wife. Due to the misunderstanding lack of knowledge, without the guidance of the department defendants No.4 to 6 without her knowledge as she is legally wedded wife with the influence of third parties by leaving her name in the service record mentioned the name of third party. She is not legally wedded wife and her children are not legally entitled to claim the benefits, hence the written statement filed by defendants No 1 to 3 has to be rejected. That she being legally wedded wife she is entitled to claim all the benefits of her deceased husband Narayana @ Narayanappa. Further her children are legally entitled to claim the appointment of her deceased husband in the above said department on compensate ground. Either the defendant No.1 or her children are not legally entitled to claim any benefits of her deceased husband. That defendants No.1 to 3 not legally entitled to claim any benefits of her deceased husband, further defendants No.4 to 6 being the department have no reasonable cause to with held and 30 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 refuse to release the said benefits in her favour. The PW.1 prays to decree the suit directing the defendants No. 4 to 6 to release all the benefits in her favour and to give appoint in favour of her son by refusing the claim of defendants No.1 to 3 and allow the above petition. In support of oral evidence PW.1 marked documents ExP1 to ExP32.
17. The defendant No.2 Vijay Kumar S/o Late Narayana @ Narayanappa filed his affidavit in lieu of examination in chief as DW.1 and deposed the evidence that defendant No.1 is his mother. The allegations made at para-3 of the plaint stating that the plaintiff no.1 is the legally wedded wife of late narayana @ narayanappa and their marriage was solemnized according to hindu customs and traditions on 17/01/1980 at Someshwara Ganesha Temple, old madras road, Ulsoor, Bangalore is false. That the allegations made at para-4 of the plaint that the plaintiffs No.2 to 5 are born out of their lawful wedlock is also false. It is further false that they constituted Hindu Joint Family 31 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 Mithakshara School of Law and further allegation that the plaintiff and deceased Narayana @ Narayappa were staying together until the death of Narayanappa is also false. That the averments made at para-5 of the plaint that deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa was working as driver in the office of defendants No.3 to 6 in Depot No.18 under Token No. 002866 is true. The allegation that he was suffering from heart problem and he took voluntary retirement is incorrect statement. The further allegation that after retirement and before retirement the deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa was got admitted by the plaintiff for his heart problem at M.S Ramaiah Medical Teaching Hospital and expenses of the same came to be born out the plaintiff are all false. It is fact that Narayana @ Narayanappa died on 04/11/2011 but the reason given for the death by the plaintiff are all incorrect and so also it is incorrect say that the plaintiff met the expenses of the same. That the entire allegations made at para-7 of the plaint are not only incorrect statement and false. That the allegations 32 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 made at para-8 that Plaintiff contacted the necessary department of BMTC for the said Form No.1 & 2 presented the same on the same on the same day defendants No.4 to 6 is false, It is further false to say that she was shocked and surprised to know that name of defendant No.1 has been entered as nominee in the service records of the deceased Narayana @ Narayanapa and also the department mentioned that defendant No.1 is entitle for the benefits of the deceased Narayana@ Narayanappa as per the record maintained by defendants No.4 to 6 and also refused to release the benefit pension of deceased Narayana Narayanappa is correct on part of defendants No. 4 to 6. The defendant No.1 is legally wedded wife of deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa and defendants No.2 and 3 are children born to the wedlock of deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa with defendant No.1. When the true facts is that of the relationship of deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa with that of defendant No.1 it cannot be said as a surprise to plaintiffs. So whatever answer defendants No.4 to 6 33 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 gave to the plaintiff when they approached them to release the benefit accrued to credit of deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa shall have to go over to defendants No.1 to 3 alone and not to that of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have nothing to do with the family of deceased Narayana Narayanappa and defendants No.1 to 3 are wife and children of deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa. That the plaintiffs giving several representations to the defendants No.4 to 6 and failed to get the benefit accrued to the service conditions of deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa is only futile exercise on their part as they have nothing to do with the deceased Narayana @ Narayanapa. The rest of the allegations made at para-9 of the plaint are all false. The allegations made at para-10 stating that the plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 31/01/2012 against the defendants is incorrect. The rest of the allegations made at para-10 of plaint is false. That the entire allegations made in para-11 of the plaint that produce the marriage invitation card photos of the Narayanappa with 34 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 plaintiffs along with the plaintiffs, ESI Card, Election Identify Card, LIC bond of the plaintiff No.1 to show that the plaintiff No.1 is the legally wedded wife and the plaintiffs No.2 to 5 are the children born out of the wed-lock are all fabricated documents and by giving false information the plaintiffs might have got those documents referred to and so also so called photographs produces are all morphed photographs to file the present plaint. None of the documents as referred to at para-11 of the plaint have no bearing on the defendants, as stated supra those are the documents which has been concocted, fabricated and morphed, only to knock of the lawful rights the defendants No.1 to 3 and also to misguide the employer with whom Narayana @ Narayanappa served. Hence allegations made in para No11 is false and denied.
18. The DW.1 further deposed evidence that when there is no relationship of husband and wife and when there is no legal marriage that happened between the plaintiff No.1 and deceased 35 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 Narayana @ Narayanappa the claim of the plaintiff No.1 when she is still alive deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa could not have not been taken the defendant No.1 as his wife does not survive for consideration. When the defendant No.1 is lawfully wedded wife of deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa and children born out of such wedlock as defendants No.2 and 3 cannot be called illegal and also cannot also be said that no legal status has been attached to the marriage. The defendant No.1 and defendants No.2 & 3 are only entitle to take all the monitory benefits including that of the pension of the deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa as they are only the Clause-1 heirs of the Hindu Succession Act and as such except them no one else including the plaintiffs can have no say over the same, nor can their claim. In all the Service Records maintained by the employer of the deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa, it is only the name of the defendant No.1 and that of defendants No.2 and 3 are found the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation is undertaking of 36 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 the Government of Karnataka all the records maintained by it in reference to its employees it will weigh more than that of the alleged documents fabricated by the plaintiff which have been referred to at para-11 are to be ignored. The defendants No.4 to 6 are bound to act as per the service records of the deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa and release the amount which has accrued to the service benefits of the deceased in favour of defendants No.1 to 3 only and it is they are only entitle to have the benefit of the same. In this connection the defendants No.1 to 3 are producing documents which clearly shows and indicates that defendant No.1 is the legally wedded wife and the defendants No.2 and 3 are the children born out of the wedlock with that of deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa. In all the Service Records and also other documents including death certificate issued by the BBMP it has been clearly shown that deceased Narayanappa was residing with defendants No.1 to 3 at No.4, Poojappa Building, Old Church Road, 1st Main, 1st Cross, Marathahalli, Bangalore at 37 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 the time averments made by the plaintiff in this plaint. From this it is crystal clear that plaintiffs No.1 to 3 are trying to knock off the monitory benefits accrued to the service of deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa from that of the legal heirs who are none other than defendants No.1 to 3. That the allegations made at para-13 of the plaint that the plaintiff No.1 legally wedded the deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa on 17/01/1980 in Bangalore and the plaintiffs No.2 to 6 are born out of their lawful wedlock and deceased was also living with the plaintiffs as on 04/11/2011 and the death ceremony was performed by the plaintiff are all self serving testimony of the plaintiff to file the present plaint. It is false that even before the death of Narayana @ Narayanappa plaintiffs spent the medical expenses as such they are legally entitle to the service benefits of deceased Narayanappa are all incorrect statement. The plaintiff No.1 is not wife of deceased Narayana @ Narayanappa, hence question of her claiming appointment on compassionate ground with the employer of the 38 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 deceased also would not arise for consideration. That the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 have no relationship either of marital status or of any other status with that of the deceased Narayanappa their claim to have the benefit of the monitory benefit of the deceased also would not arise for consideration at all. The DW.1 prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs. In support of oral evidence DW.1 marked documents ExD1 to ExD41
19. The plaintiff No.1 examined as PW.1 and deposed the evidence as discussed above and she contended that she is legally wedded wife of Narayana @ Narayanappa and her marriage taken place on 17/01/1980 according to Hindu customs at Someshwara Ganesha Temple, Old Madras Road, Halasuru, Bengaluru and out of their wed lock four children are born and now all are major. They have constituted Hindu joint family and her children are studying and totally dependent upon the income of her deceased husband. Her husband was working as driver in the office of defendants No.4 to 6 in Depot No.84 and Department has given 39 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 Token No.002866 and when he was in service he was suffering from diabetic and heard problem and took voluntary retirement and stayed with them. That due to severe chest pain he was admitted in M.S. Ramaiah Hospital and when he was under
treatment all of a sudden due to Cardiac Arrest he expired on 04/11/2011 and afterwards she being the legally wedded wife of Narayana @ Narayanappa performed all the death ceremony. Afterwards she and her children approached the defendants No.4 to 6 for claiming the benefits, dues and salary and other benefits available and also requested to provide appointment to her children on compassionate grounds. In the beginning agreed and informed her to furnish the clearance certificate of her deceased husband under Form No.182 and informed her to approach after one week. She furnished all the documents of her husband to the defendants No.4 to 6 and thereafter they disclosed that, in the service record of her husband name of one Ramdevi has been mentioned she made counter claim on the benefits and informed 40 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 her to approach the competent Court of law to get necessary orders. Hence she filed P&SC No.25011/2012 seeking Succession Certificate, wherein the defendants No.1 to 3 appeared and filed objections and defendants No.4 & 5 not filed objection and later on the said petition is converted to Original Suit i.e., present suit OS.No.25389/2017. The plaintiff denied the allegations of the defendant No.1 that defendant No.1 married Narayanappa and also denied that the defendants No.2 & 3 are children of said Narayanappa. The plaintiff No.1 prays in her evidence to direct the defendants No.4 to 6 to release all benefits of her husband and also appoint her son by refusing the claim of the defendants No.1 to 3. In support of oral evidence PW.1 marked the documents ExP1 to ExP34.
20. The ExP1 is marked as marriage card of plaintiff No.1 with Narayanappa and ExP2 is photograph. The ExP3 is Election I.D card of plaintiff No.1, ExP4 is Election I.D card of Naryanappa S/o Pujappa. The ExP5 is Election I.D card of plaintiff No.4 41 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 Nethra D/o Narayanappa. The ExP6 is Election I.D card of plaintiff No.3 Anitha D/o Narayanappa. The ExP7 is Election I.D card of plaintiff No.5 Manjunath S/o Narayanappa. The ExP8 is Election I.D Card of plaintiff No.2 Baby D/o Narayanappa. The ExP9 is one Identity Card issued by ESI Corporation to Nethra N wherein in the column S/o, D/o, W/o name of Narayanappa is mentioned. The ExP10 & ExP11 are is LIC premium policy by Nirmala W/o Narayanappa and receipt. The ExP12 is School Transfer Certificate of N. Baby D/o Narayanappa. The ExP13 is PUC marks card of Anitha N D/o Narayanappa. The ExP14 is School Transfer Certificate of N. Nethra D/o Narayanappa. The ExP15 is School Transfer Certificate of N. Baby D/o Narayanappa and mother name is mentioned as Nirmala. The ExP16 is Marriage Invitation Card of Lakshmi with Nagaraja. The ExP17 is marked as photo of plaintiff No.1 and her husband of Nethra. The ExP18 is Salary Slip of Narayanappa issued by BMTC, Bengaluru. The ExP19 is case summary and discharge 42 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 record of Narayanappa issued by M.S. Ramaiah Medical Treatment Hospital, Bengaluru. The ExP20 is death certificate of Narayanappa S/o Poojappa, as per it he died on 04/11/2011. The ExP21 is invitation of Vaikunta Smaradane of Narayanappa. The ExP22 is notice dated 13/01/2012 issued by plaintiffs No.1 to 5 to the defendants No.4 to 6 and defendant No.1 mentioning that plaintiff No.1 is wife and plaintiffs No.1 to 5 are children of late Narayanappa and she is entitle for service and death benefits of Narayanappa and informed the defendants No.1 to 3 not to release any benefits in favour of defendant No.1. The ExP23 to ExP25 are postal receipts and ExP26 to ExP28 are postal acknowledgements. The ExP29 is another notice dated 09/02/2012 issued by plaintiffs No.1 to 5 to the defendants No.4 to 6 and defendant No.1 mentioning that plaintiff No.1 is wife and plaintiffs No.1 to 5 are children of late Narayanappa and she is entitle for service and death benefits of Narayanappa and informed the defendants No.1 to 3 not to release any benefits in 43 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 favour of defendant No.1. The ExP30 to ExP32 are postal receipts. The ExP33 is Bus pass of Manjunath S/o Narayanappa and ExP34 is Bus pass of Anitha D/o Narayanappa.
21. On the contrary the defendant No.2 examined as DW.1 and deposed the evidence as discussed above and he denied the marriage relationship of plaintiff No.1 with Narayana @ Narayanappa and also plaintiffs No.2 to 5 born to plaintiff No.1 and Narayanappa. The DW.1 in his evidence further deposed the evidence that defendant No.1 is legally wedded wife of Narayana @ Narayanappa and defendants No.2 & 3 are born out of their wed lock and they are only entitle to receive the pension benefits of Narayana @ Narayanappa. The DW.1 in support of oral evidence marked the documents ExD1 to ExD41.
22. The ExD1 is letter given by the plaintiff No.1 to the Tahsildar, Chintamani Taluk for effecting pouthi katha of Sy.No.51 measuring 1A-16Gs of Soladenahalli Village in the 44 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 name of herself and 2nd wife of her husband Ramadevi. The ExD2 is death certificate of Narayanappa S/o Poojappa. The ExD3 is the marriage invitation card of Ramadevi and Narayanappa, as per it their marriage taken place on 19/06/1988. The ExD4 is School Transfer Certificate of Narayana S/o Poojappa. The ExD5 is the Election I.D card of Narayana S/o Poojappa. The ExD6 is Aadhaar Enrollment Form of Narayanappa S/o Poojappa. The ExD7 is copy of service book of Narayana who was working as driver in BMTC. The ExD8 is ration card of Narayanappa, wherein the family members name is mentioned as Poojappa, Gowramma, Narayana, Ramadevi and Krishna Kumar. The ExD9 to ExD19 are letters marked as said letters are communicated between deceased Narayana and defendant No.1 Ramedevi. The ExD20 is School Fee receipt of N. Manasa. The ExD21 is application filed by Narayana to KSRTC for issuing bus pass to his daughter Manasa. The ExD22 is bus pass of Manasa. The ExD23 is bus pass of Vijaya Kumar S/o Narayanappa. The 45 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 ExD24 is the family free bus pass issued by KSRTC to Narayana and family members Ramadevi wife, Children Vijaya Kumar and Manasa.
23. The ExD25 is application for issue of free pass given by Narayanappa to KSRTC, wherein also name of Narayanappa and his wife Ramadevi, Vijaya Kuamar and Manasa are mentioned. The ExD26 & ExD27 are School Fee receipts of N. Vijaya Kumar S/o Narayanappa. The ExD28 is School Transfer Certificate of Vijaya Kumar S/o Narayanappa and mother name is mentioned as Ramadevi. The ExD29 is PUC marks card of Vijaya Kumar S/o Narayanappa. The ExD30 is SSLC marks card of Vijaya Kumar S/o Narayanappa and mother name is mentioned as Ramadevi. The ExD31 is application filed by Narayanappa under Namune 'A' for issue of caste certificate of his son Vijaya Kumar. The ExD32 is caste certificate issued to Vijaya Kumar S/o Narayanappa. The ExD33 is birth certificate of Manasa. The ExD34 is School Transfer certificate of Manasa D/o 46 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 Narayanappa. The ExD35 is caste certificate of Ramadevi W/o Narayanappa. The ExD36 is LIC premium paid receipt by Ramadevi. The ExD37 is deposit account opening form in Vijaya Bank, White Field by Narayanappa S/o Poojappa, wherein nominee name is mentioned as Ramadevi (defendant No.1). The ExD38 to ExD40 are photos and ExD41 is negatives marked by DW.1 as his family photos.
24. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove that she is the legally wedded wife of late Narayana @ Narayanappa and due to their wed lock plaintiffs No.2 to 5 were born and defendants No.1 to 3 have no moral right to claim the benefit/pension of the deceased Narayanappa. That the plaintiff No.1 examined as PW.1 as discussed above and in support of oral evidence he has marked several documents as ExP1 to ExP32. Those documents are marriage invitation card, voter I.D cards of herself and her children. LIC premium paid receipts, school leaving certificates of her children and SSLC & PUC marks cards. But the plaintiff 47 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 has not produced any specific legal documents to show that she is the legally wedded wife of Narayana @ Narayanappa. That the marriage registration certificate of herself with Narayana @ Narayanappa. The mere ExP1 & ExP2 invitation and one photo does not disclose the legal marriage relationship of plaintiff No.1 with Narayana @ Narayanappa. Even ExP1 is also not complete document, it is only half portion of the invitation. Further ExP2 is marked a marriage photo of plaintiff No.1 and Narayana @ Narayanappa, but relating to the said photo, negative or C.D or photo receipt are not produced. Further the plaintiff has not led evidence of any other witnesses to prove her marriage relationship with Narayana @ Narayanappa. That as per the ExD7 service register of Narayana @ Narayanappa the name of defendant No.1 Ramadevi mentioned as nominee and also mentioned relationship with Narayana @ Narayanappa as wife. The PW.1 in her cross examination deposed the evidence that "ನನರನಯಣಪಪನವರ ಎಲನಲ ಸರರರಸಸ ರರಕನರರನಲಲ 1 ನರರ ಪಪತವನದಯ ಹರಸರರ 48 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 ನಮಮದರ ಆಗದರ ಎಎದರರ ಸರ." Further as per ExD7 the name of defendant No.1 is mentioned in the service book of Narayana @ Narayanappa as nominee, which is maintained by the Employer of Narayana @ Narayanappa i.e., BMTC, Bengaluru. The plaintiff/PW.1 in her cross examination deposed evidence that "1 ನರರ ಪಪತವನದ ನನನ ಗಎರನನರನ ಯನಮನರಸ ತನನ ಹರಸರನರನ ಅವರ ಸರರರಸಸ ರಜಸಸರನಲಲ ಬರರಸಕರಮಎಡದನದರರ." Such contention of the plaintiff is true and correct while she has not objected the said entry in the service book of Narayana @ Narayanappa during his lifetime is not properly explained. Further on the application of the said Narayanappa the Employer BMTC entered the name of defendant No.1 in the Service Register of Narayanappa for his service benefits and pension as a nominee. Under the circumstances the defendant No.1 is entitle to get the service benefits of the deceased Narayanappa. Further the PW.1 in her cross- examination deposed the evidence that "ನನನರ ಹನಜರರಪಡಸದ ದನಖಲನತಗಳ ಪಪಕನರ ನನರನಯಣಪಪರವರರ ದದ03-11-1980 ರಲಲ ಕರಲಸಕರಕ ಸರರರದನದರರ 49 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 ಎಎದರರ ಸರ. ನನನ ಮದರವರಯರ ದದ 17/01/1980 ರಎದರ ಮದರವರಯನಗದರ ಅಎತ ಹರರಳದರದರನರ." Hence as per version of the plaintiff herself as discussed above, after her marriage the said Narayanappa joined to service. Hence the said Narayanappa ought to have entered the name of plaintiff No.1 in the service register, but he has not entered the name of plaintiff No.1 and her children in his service register. As discussed above plaintiff has failed to produce the specific documents to prove her legal marital relationship with Narayanappa. Therefore plaintiff is not entitle for service benefits of deceased Narayanappa. The plaintiff failed to prove Issues No.1 to 3 and defendant No.1 proved Issues No.4 & 5. Therefore I answer Issues No.1 to 3 in Negative and Issues No.4 & 5 in Affirmative.
25. Issue No.6 :
In view of above discussion I proceed to pass following:
:ORDER:50
Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, typed by him. Corrected on line in computer, taken printout, then again corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this 23rd day of December 2021).
(Smt.Suvarna K. Mirji) XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE.
:ANNEXURE:
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
PW1 : Nirmala W/o Late Narayanappa DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFF: ExP1 : Invitation Card ExP2 : Photograph ExP3to8 : Election I.D cards ExP9 : ESI card of Narayanappa ExP10&11 : LIC Policy & premium paid receipt ExP12to15 : School Transfer certificate & SSLC Marks card 51 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 ExP16 : Marriage invitation card of Baby ExP17 : Photograph ExP18 : Salary slip of Narayanappa ExP19 : Treatment summary of Narayanappa in MS Ramaiah Hospital ExP20 : Death certificate of Narayanappa ExP21 : Invitation of Vaikunta Samaradane ExP22to28 : Notice copies, receipts and acknowledgements ExP29to32 : Notice copies and receipts ExP33 & 35: Bus Passes WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS: DW1 : Vijaya Kumar S/o Narayana @ Narayanappa DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANTS: ExD1 : Letter given by the plaintiff No.1 to the Tahsildar, Chintamani Taluk ExD2 : Death certificate of Narayanappa ExD3 : Marriage invitation card of Narayanappa ExD4 : School Certificate of Narayanappa ExD5 : Election I.D card of Narayanappa ExD6 : Aadhar Enrollment form of Narayanappa ExD7 : Service register copy of Narayanappa ExD8 : Ration Card of Narayanappa 52 Judgment OS.No.25389/2017 ExD9to19 : Eleven Letters ExD20&21 : Bus pass request application of Manasa & receipt ExD22 : Bus pass of Manasa ExD23 : Bus Pass of DW.1 ExD24 : Bus Pass of family of DW.1 ExD25 : Application given to BMTC for family tour pass ExD26&27 : Two School Fee Receipts ExD28 : School Transfer Certificate of DW.1 ExD29&30 : 7th & 10th Marks card of DW.1 ExD31 : Caste certificate of Narayanappa ExD32 : Caste certificate of DW.1 ExD33 : Birth certificate of Manasa ExD34 : Transfer certificate of Manasa ExD35 : Caste certificate of Ramadevi ExD36 : LIC premium paid receipt of Ramadevi ExD37 : Account opened at Vijaya Bank ExD38to40 : Three photographs ExD41 : Negative of photos XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT : BANGALORE.