Bangalore District Court
Dr.Shwetha Shamanth vs Prema Rangaswamy on 4 August, 2025
KABC010166782011
IN THE COURT OF THE XLIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH.No.44), AT BENGALURU
PRESENT : SRI.BHAT MANJUNATH NARAYAN,
B.Com, LL.B.(Spl.)
XLIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU .
DATED: THIS THE 04 th DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
O.S.No.4816 of 2011
Plaintiff: 1. Dr. Shwetha Shamanth
Aged about 29 years,
W/o Late R. Shamanth Kumar,
R/at Flat No.D-804, Concorde
Midway city, Basapura Road,
(Off Hosur Road) Hosa
junction, Bengaluru-560 100 &
also
at No.84, Kendriya Nagara,
Ganigarapalya,
Thalaghattapura Post,
Bengaluru-560 062.
(By Sri. S.C.R., Advocate)
-VS-
2 O.S.No.4816 of 2011
Defendants: 1. Smt. Prema Rangaswamy
W/o M. Rangaswamy
Aged about 60 years
2. Sri. M. Rangaswamy
Aged about 75 years
S/o Late T. Magadappa
Both are residing at flat
No.604,
Shankari apartments, 2 nd
Cross, Anjaneya Nagar,
Banashankari III Stage,
Bengaluru-560 085.
Sri. M. Rangaswamy
since dead by LRs
2(a) Smt. Vinutha,
Aged about 40 years,
D/o late M. Rangaswamy,
W/o Girish,
R/at flat No.604, Shankari
apartments, 2 nd cross,
Anjaneya Nagar,
Banashankari III stage,
Bengaluru-560 085.
3. M/s. Kotak Securities Ltd.,
6 th floor, Kotak Infinity,
building NO.21, Infinity park,
Off western express highway,
general A.K. Vaidya Marg,
Malad (E) Mumbai-400 0097
represented by its Secretary
3 O.S.No.4816 of 2011
4. The Manager,
Customer Care
Citi Bank, Mail Room, NO.2,
Club house road, Anna Salai,
Chennai - 600 002.
5. The Senior Divisional
Manager,
LIC of India, Jeevan Prakash
building, J.C. Road,
Bengaluru-560 002.
6. CISCO Systems (India)
Ltd.,
Human Resources Department
No.6, level-2, 2 nd Floor,
Brunton Road,
Bengaluru-560 001
represented by its Manager.
7. ING Vysya Bank Ltd.,
Consumer Finance
Department
1 st Floor, No.40, 2 nd Main
Road, CKC Garden, Near
Mission Road, Bengaluru-560
027 represented by its
Manager.
8. ICICI Bank Ltd., No.509, 8 th
Cross, 7 th block, Jayanagar
west of Kanakapura Main
Road, Bengaluru -560 011
represented by its Manager.
4 O.S.No.4816 of 2011
(D1,2-S., D2(a)-GSS., D3,6-
Exparte., D4-RRP., D5-PTP.,
D7-GCK., D8-SV., Advocates)
Date of Institution of the suit : 06.07.2011
Nature of the Suit : Partition
Date of commencement of :
recording of the evidence 23.01.2015
Date on which the Judgment : 04.08.2025
was pronounced
Total Duration : Years Months Days
14 00 29
(BHAT MANJUNATH NARAYAN)
XLIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
J U D G M E N T
That, the plaintiff has filed this suit for partition & separate possession of the suit schedule properties claiming her share.
5 O.S.No.4816 of 2011Suit schedule properties are non-agriculture land-flats, death benefits and shares in different companies.
2) The averments made in the plaint in brief are as follows:
Genealogy of the parties as could be seen from the pleadings is as under:
M. Rangaswamy-def-2 (died during pendency of the suit) Smt. Prema Rangaswamy-def-1 (wife) R. Shamanth Kumar Vinutha (dead ) (Def-2(a)) Dr.Shwetha Shamanth- Plaintiff
a) The plaintiff submits that she is the legally wedded wife of R. Shamanth Kumar and their marriage came to be solemnized on 06.12.2007 at Shri Kuchalambal Kalyana Mahal at Jayanagar block-II. The 6 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 plaintiff submits that defendant No.1 and 2 are her in-
laws. Defendant No.1 and 2 are having one son R. Shamanth Kumar and one daughter Vinutha who is married & living at Hyderabad. Husband of plaintiff completed his education in Bachelor of Engineering and he got lucrative job from 1999. He had good salary and being bachelor he used to contribute for the maintenance of the joint family consisting of himself, his father and mother. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that from the financial assistance of her husband joint family had acquired house property in the name of the second defendant M. Rangaswamy. It is further submitted by the plaintiff that item No.1 property apartment bearing flat No.604, Shankari Apartments, Banashankari III stage, was also acquired in the name of second defendant, out of the earnings and also borrowing loan from the bank. It is submitted by the plaintiff that purchase was made as 7 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 per registered sale deed dated 30.3.2004 wherein 2 nd defendant signed as a purchaser. Suit item No.2 property flat bearing No. 304, Kiran Comforts, situated at Banashankari 3 rd stage, Bengaluru was acquired in the name of 2 nd defendant which is leased out on monthly rent of ₹. 10,000/-. The plaintiff submits that item No.3 property bearing flat No. 44-304, Shanthi park, 9 th block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru had been acquired during 1991 in the name of the 1 st defendant out of the joint family funds. It is submitted by the plaintiff that item No.3 property also fetches monthly rent of ₹.10,000/- to the family. It is specific case of the plaintiff that for the purpose of purchase of item No.1 to 3 properties her husband R. Shamanth Kumar had contributed his savings and it was understanding between the parties that Shamanth Kumar is having 1/3 rd share in the item No.1 to 3 properties which would be given to him as and when partition is 8 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 effected in the joint family. It is further submitted by the plaintiff that suit item No.4 property flat No.D-804 was acquired by husband of the plaintiff along with plaintiff jointly by obtaining loan from ING Vysya Bank, Mission Road, Bengaluru. It is submitted by the plaintiff that the EMIs were paid during lifetime of her husband from his salary and as such, plaintiff and defendants are in joint possession & enjoyment of suit schedule 1 to 4 properties. It is submitted by plaintiff that her husband had immense love and affection towards his parents and he had purchased the properties in the name of parents, all are enjoying the property treating it as a joint family property.
b) The plaintiff claims that her husband had great love & affection towards her and he desired her to take up higher education as she has secured good marks in her MBBS. Loan was obtained from the bank 9 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 and she joined Kempegowda Institute of Medical Sciences, for her post-graduation-MD course and secured education loan for higher studies. It is submitted by the plaintiff that she has taken a loan of ₹.2,51,000/- same is required to be cleared and bank has already issued a letter to furnish another co- obligant. The plaintiff submits that since parents were dominating the will of her husband & had influence over him, her husband had made defendant No.1 and 2 as a nominees towards the insurance policy, other investment, death benefit relief fund, and salary benefit in the name of defendant No.1 and 2. The plaintiff submits that CISCO a reputed company wherein her husband was working 2 nd defendant's name was shown as nominee towards provident fund and stock/share granted by the CISCO to his employees. The plaintiff submits that her husband has taken LIC policies bearing No. 613009413, 10 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 614566584, 614668403, 612420963 and 614025533 and nominee was 1 st defendant and as far as LIC policy No. 612307160 nomination was in favour of the second defendant. Husband of the plaintiff had nominated the 1 st defendant as nominee in respect of his ICICI bank account No. 85007354247 of Jayanagar branch. Plaintiff has claimed that suit item No.1 to 3 properties were acquired by her husband, he has made substantial contribution for repayment of loan.
c) The plaintiff submits that her husband died on 10.01.2011 leaving behind him 1 st defendant and plaintiff as his class-I heirs and they have succeeded to his interest in the schedule properties. It is submitted by the plaintiff that on 20.01.2011 eleventh day ceremony of her husband was held and on 21 st January 2011 her sister-in-law had left to Hyderabad, on 23.01.2011 plaintiff took permission of her in-laws 11 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 and went to her father's house. The plaintiff submits that to her surprise she found that laptop, camera, i- pod were removed from her room and on the same day afternoon plaintiff's father-in-law and 2 nd defendant gave her file of flat No.D-804 along with some pay-in-slips of ING Vysya Bank. It is submitted by the plaintiff that defendant No.1 and 2 told the plaintiff to do whatever she want do with the help of her father and sent her out of the family. Defendant No.1 and 2 called the father of the plaintiff for one month's death ceremony which was held on 10.02.2011 and on the same day offi cer of CISCO company came and got signed nominees forms. The plaintiff submits that the defendant No.1 and 2 vacated flat No.804 and occupied flat No.604 by sending keys of flat No.804 to the plaintiff. 12 O.S.No.4816 of 2011
d) It is submitted by plaintiff that an amount of ₹.12,10,000/- was there in the Citi Bank account and out of which ₹.11,04,000/- was withdrawn in the month of February 2011. It is submitted by the plaintiff that the amount was kept for repayment of ING Vysya Bank loan in respect of flat No.804. It is also submitted by the plaintiff that 1 st defendant has received 1,20,000 U.S. dollars from the employers of her late husband-CISCO. The 2 nd defendant has received ₹.70,000/- as arrears of salary from employer. The 1 st and 2 nd defendants have managed to obtain payments in respect of LIC policy to the extent of ₹.11,00,000/- on the ground that they are nominees to the policy. It is further submitted by the plaintiff that amount of ₹.11,04,000/- was taken from Citi Bank en-cashing the cheques without disclosing to the bank that drawer of the cheque R. Shamanth Kumar was no more. It is submitted by plaintiff that 13 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 there is one more account in ICICI Bank wherein ₹.40,000/- is in the name of her husband and he had nominated his mother 1 st defendant. The plaintiff submits that though nominations were made in favour of defendant No.1 and 2 by her deceased husband, plaintiff is also having share in the amount as a legal heir of her husband. In law nominee is only a trustee to receive the assets and pay the same to the legal heirs. The plaintiff submits that defendant No.1 and 2 have not bothered to furnish full details amounts collected by them which were due to the husband of the plaintiff on account of his death. In-spite of request made by plaintiff, the defendant No.1 and 2 have merely sent records pertaining to flat No.804 which is mortgaged to ING Vysya Bank. The plaintiff is not in position to pay ₹.54 lakhs to ING Vysya Bank the outstanding loan amount in view of non-co- operation of defendant no.1 and 2 to sell the same. It 14 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 is submitted by plaintiff that EMI amount of ₹.55,838/- per month is due to ING Vysya Bank and loan period is 17 years. Besides there are share which belonged to R. Shamanth Kumar in ICICI Demat account No.50067258 worth ₹.1,50,000/- without nomination, parties to suit are required to submit succession certificate for sharing the same equally between plaintiff and 1 st defendant. The plaintiff submits that all the original documents pertaining to suit schedule property, bank passbook, cheque books share certificates are in the custody of defendants and plaintiff was given copies of records of flat No.804 as the originals are with Bank with an instructions to pay the balance of EMI or sell the same. In the said circumstances, plaintiff requested the defendant No.1 and 2 to divide the flats, amounts, including shares of CISCO and provident fund amounts which were nominated in the name of defendant No.1 and 2. 15 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 However, the defendant NO.1 and 2 have not divided the schedule property. One S.T. Nagaraj who was person for settling alliance and marriage of plaintiff with R. Shamanth Kumar during first week of March 2011 persuaded the defendant No.1 & 2 to effect the partition. Attempts made to convince the defendants to effect the partition have failed. Defendant No.1 and 2 are contending that plaintiff is entitled to only flat No.804 with responsibility to clear the loan by herself.
e) The plaintiff submit that during period from 09.05.2011 and 17.05.2011 defendant No.1 has invested in company shares and purchased shares worth ₹.14,21,000/- through Kotak Securities Ltd., It is submitted by plaintiff that investments were made out of funds which were collected as nominee of late R. Shamanth Kumar by 1 st defendant. As such shares 16 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 acquired by 1 st defendant are liable to be divided equally between plaintiff and 1 st defendant as class-I heirs of deceased R. Shamanth Kumar. Plaintiff submits that she is entitled for half of the shares of those investments, National savings certificates, mutual funds and fixed deposits belonging to her deceased husband R. Shamanth Kumar. As the defendants are not ready to divide the suit schedule property, plaintiff claims that she is before this court claiming partition & separate possession of suit schedule item No.1 to 19 properties.
3. a) In response to the summons issued, the defendant No.1 has appeared and filed written statement. In the written statement defendant No.1 has admitted the relationship of plaintiff and defendants as stated in the plaint. However, defendant NO.1 has denied that schedule properties 17 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 are the joint family properties of plaintiff, defendant No.1 and 2 and R. Shamanth Kumar. The defendant No.1 contended that Shamanth Kumar has not contributed any amount for purchase of item No.1 to 3 schedule properties. The defendant No.1 contended that initial payment of ₹.15,00,000/- for the purpose of item No.4 property was also made by 2 nd defendant. Loan was also obtained from ING Vysya Bank to purchase the property and loan is yet to be cleared. The defendant No.1 and 2 have contended that at the request of plaintiff they have left suit item No.4 property and started residing in other property. The plaintiff was residing in item No.4 property and hence, they have vacated the same. The defendant No.1 has got no objection for plaintiff retaining the house if she discharges loan borrowed by mortgaging the item No.4 of the suit schedule properties. It is also disputed by defendant No.1 that with the help of 18 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 husband of the plaintiff Shamanth Kumar, 2 nd defendant has acquired the suit item No.1 property. It is also disputed that item No.2 of schedule property was acquired in the name of 2 nd defendant with the assistance of plaintiff's husband. In fact item No.2 of schedule property was purchased while Shamanth Kumar was studying his Engineering course and property is purchased by selling, property situated at Kumaraswamy layout and therefore, item No.2 property is the self-acquired property of 2 nd defendant, Plaintiff has got no right over the item No.2 property and as such, she cannot claim share in the same. The defendant No.1 further submits that item No.3 schedule bearing flat No.44-304 Shanthi Park was purchased by 1 st defendant and same was purchased before plaintiff's husband could be employed in any organizations and as on the date of purchase of said property, Shamanth Kumar was not employed and as 19 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 such, question of he contributing any amount towards the purchase of property does not arise for consideration. Therefore, the defendant No.1 contended that plaintiff be put to strict proof of nature of suit item No.1 to 3 properties as same are self-acquired property of defendant No.1 and 2.
b) It is submitted by defendant No.1 that item No.3 of schedule property is self-acquired property of 1 st defendant and she in turn she bequeathed the same by way of WILL in favour of her daughter Vinutha Girish in the year 2000 before plaintiff's marriage with Shamanth Kumar.
c) So far as item No.1 property is concerned. It is contended that property is purchased in the joint name of 2 nd defendant and his son R. Samanth. The defendant No.1 further contended that property was 20 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 purchased by 2 nd defendant by borrowing loan and he has discharged entire loan amount. Property was purchased before celebration of marriage of plaintiff with R. Shamanth and therefore, the said property is not the joint family property. However, 2 nd defendant had purchased the same in the joint name of himself and his son Shamanth Kumar. No contribution was made by Shamanth Kumar or plaintiff as contended in the plaint. It is further submitted by defendant No.1 that at no point of time item No.1 to 3 properties are treated as joint family properties and as such plaintiff is having share in the same. The defendant No.1 has admitted that plaintiff continued her Master Decree and she obtained loan from State Bank of India for the purpose of higher studies and husband of the plaintiff stood as a co-obligant for the loan obtained. 21 O.S.No.4816 of 2011
d) The defendant No.1 submits that defendant No.1 and 2 were taking care of plaintiff also, but for the reasons best known to her, plaintiff asked defendant No.1 and 2 to vacate item No.4 schedule property and therefore, defendant No.1 and 2 have vacated the same. The mother of the plaintiff died, but defendant No.1 and 2 never directed the plaintiff to quit matrimonial home. However plaintiff herself asked the defendant No.1 and 2 to vacate the premises wherein they were living and hence, cannot state that defendants have neglected the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 has contended that defendant No.3 Vinutha Girish is the only daughter of defendant No.1, but has denied that she is dominating influence over her parents and brother. The defendant No.1 contended that as initial payment of ₹.15 lakh was paid by 2 nd defendant, item No.4 property is the joint family property. The defendant No.1 has contended 22 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 that plaintiff had married son of defendant No.1 and 2 in the year 2007 and denied that they managed to continue their domination and kept control over their sons' finances. But husband of plaintiff has nominated the defendant No.1 and 2 in respect of investment and insurance policies. M/s. CISCO company's shares plaintiff has been made as a nominee and she is entitled for provident fund and other benefits, she has taken said benefits after death of her husband. It is denied by defendant No.1 that defendant No.1 and 2 are keeping all original documents, passbook and cheque books of plaintiff's husband. The defendants have also denied the other averments made in the plaint and also disputed the share of the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 has also disputed that out of amount received from insurance policy and other benefit, they have invested the amounts in stocks. The defendant No.1 has admitted 23 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 that 1 st defendant has received a sum of ₹.54 lakh from employer as she was made as nominee by her son Shamanth Kumar. It is submitted by defendant No.1 that whatever insurance policies that were held by Shamanth Kumar, he had nominated defendant No.1 and 2 as his nominees and therefore plaintiff has nothing to do with the insurance policies and she is not entitled for any share in the amount. The defendant No.1 has further disputed that there is an amount of ₹.40,000/- with ICICI Bank and she is also entitled to claim share in the same. Since properties are separate properties of defendant No.1 and 2, they contended that suit is liable to be dismissed with cost.
4) Defendant No.2 died during the pendency of the suit and his legal heir i.e., daughter Smt. Vinutha is brought on record as defendant No.2(a). Defendant No.2(a) has filed written statement. It is contended by 24 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 defendant NO.2(a) that 1 st defendant and her father have executed WILL dated 06.12.2011 under which item No.1 of schedule property is given to 1 st defendant and after death of def.No.2, 1 st defendant has taken possession of the same. It is further submitted by defendant No.2(a) that late M. Rangaswamy has also bequeathed item No.2 property in favour of defendant No.2(a) and in the same WILL defendant No.1 was bequeathed item No.3 of schedule property. Defendant No.1 bequeathed item No.3 schedule property to defendant No.2(a) under WILL dated 21.12.2000 and as such, suit properties are not available for partition. It is further contended by the defendant No.2(a) that item No.2 schedule property was sold to discharge the loan of ING Vysya Bank out of total sale proceeds, plaintiff has received a sum of ₹.53,750.95 and she has not accounted for the same nor disclosed the same to the defendants. It is further 25 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 submitted by defendant No.2(a) that plaintiff has also not disclosed her marriage and giving birth to female child. The defendant No.2(a) submits that plaint averments are full of false statement & suppression of material facts and as such she is not entitled for the any relief claimed. Accordingly, defendant No.2(a) prayed that suit be dismissed with cost.
5) Defendant No.4 filed separate written statement. In the written statement defendant No.4 has contended that he is not necessary party to the suit and as such, suit is liable to be dismissed for misjoinder of necessary parties. Defendant No.4 submits that R. Shamanth Kumar was holding savings Bank account No.5-045021-809 with defendant No.4. On 06.05.1999 R. Shamanth Kumar had opened the above said savings Bank account with defendant No.4 by furnishing necessary documents. R. Shamanth 26 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 Kumar had nominated M. Rangaswamy-def No.2 herein as nominee to the said account. Defendant No.4 submits that account held in the name of R. Shamanth Kumar with Citibank was active till 20.05.2011 and the applicant used the make transaction in the said account. The statement of account for a period of 01.01.2011 to 21.05.2011 shows that on 19.01.2011 there was a balance of ₹.12,08,179.87 and a cheque bearing No.278565 for ₹.11,40,000/- was realized from R. Shamanth Kumar's account maintained with SBI and also on 08.02.2011 cheque bearing No.278578 for ₹.55,838/- was issued to ING Vysya Bank and balance as on 31.03.2011 was ₹.15,330.87/-. The defendant No.4 contended that it was not aware of the death of R. Shamanth Kumar until 12.05.2011 when father of the deceased had informed Jayanagar Branch of defendant No.4 about the death of Shamanth Kumar. Rangaswamy was 27 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 nominee, as a nominee had claimed for closure of aforesaid account by furnishing the document i.e., claim letter, death certificate, passbook copy, PAN copy and nominee declaration form. Defendant No.4 after verifying the documents submitted by defendant No.2 for closure of account after receipt of all requisite documents, closed the account on 20.05.2011. Defendant No.4 has issued demand draft for ₹.15405.87 in favour of nominee Rangaswamy which was realized on 21.05.2011. The defendant No.4 submits that upon receipt of notice by this court it has appeared through counsel and had acted prudently, diligently and strictly adhered by the banking norms and guidelines issued by RBI. There is no mistake or negligence on the part of defendant NO.4 and therefore, the defendant No.4 prayed that the suit may kindly be dismissed against the defendant No.4.
28 O.S.No.4816 of 2011
6) a) Defendant No.5 LIC of India has filed written statement. In the written statement LIC of India has stated that deceased Shamanth Kumar had taken policies and made their father and mother as nominees. Details of policies and nomination furnished stated in the written statement are as under:-
No. Policy Nominee & Remarks
number relationship
1 613009413 Prema Rangaswamy Death claim stands settled to the mother nominee on 28.02.2011 and the amount paid is Rs.23,503/-
2 612420963 Prema Rangaswamy Death claim stands settled to the mother nominee on 28.02.2011 and the amount paid is Rs.817382/-
3 612307160 Prema Rangaswamy Death claim stands settled to the mother nominee on 28.02.2011 and the amount paid is Rs.199999/-
4 614566584 Prema Rangaswamy Death claim stands settled to the mother nominee on 22.02.2011 and the amount paid is Rs.13,640/-
5 614668403 Prema Rangaswamy Death claim stands settled to the mother nominee on 23.05.2011 and the amount paid is Rs.11,910/-
6 614025533 Prema Rangaswamy Death claim stands settled to the mother nominee on 17.02.2011 and the amount paid is Rs.21718/-
29 O.S.No.4816 of 2011
b) The defendant No.5 LIC of India contended that as per Section 39 of Insurance Act, 5 th defendant LIC has settled the amount to the nominee in respect of above said policies. No prohibitory order was there against 5 th defendant from making any payment. It is denied by defendant No.5 that defendant No.1 and 2 have managed to obtain payment on the ground that 1 st defendant was nominee in collusion with defendant No.5. It is contended by defendant No.5 that there was nomination and since there was no court cases or injunction order served on defendant No.5 from making payment under policy, it has discharged its liability and therefore, contended that there is no cause of action against the defendant No.5. Accordingly, LIC of India claimed that suit be dismissed.
30 O.S.No.4816 of 2011
7) Defendant No.6 CISCO Systems (India Private Limited) has also filed written statement. In the written statement defendant No.6 has admitted that Shamanth Kumar husband of plaintiff served in defendant company from 04.08.2010 as Web Application Development Manager. Employee of defendant Company are given benefits like provident fund, gratuity, insurance, employment stock option plan/ purchase plan etc., which were also provided to the Shamanth Kumar for which he has nominated beneficiary for different benefits in the event of his death/ disability. The defendant NO.6 contended that Shamanth Kumar has nominated benefit of provident fund in favour of plaintiff, group life insurance and gratuity in favour of Prema Rangaswamy-def No.1, salary account in favour of Rangaswamy-def NO.2, Employment stock option plan/ purchase plan in favour of plaintiff. It is submitted by defendant No.6 31 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 that Employees Provident Funds Act and Miscellaneous Provisions Act Section 10(2) provides that any amount standing to the credit of a member in the fund or of an exempted employee in a provident fund at the time of his death and payable to his nominee under the scheme the same shall be subject to any deduction authorized under the said scheme or rules vest in the nominee and shall be free from any debt or other liability. The defendant No.6 has also contended that under Section 39 of Insurance Act nomination of policy is provided and holder of the policy of insurance on his own life, may when effecting the policy or at any time before the policy matures for payment, nominate person or persons to whom money secured by policy shall be paid in the event of his death. Likewise Section 4 of Payment of Gratuity Act also provides that gratuity shall be paid to an employee on termination of his employment, on his 32 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 death and gratuity payable to him shall be payable to his nominee. It is submitted by defendant No.6 that on 10.01.2011 Shamanth Kumar died of a heart attack and he was entitled for the benefits stated above. The defendant No.6 stated that following amounts were due to Shamanth Kumar.
Sl.No. Benefit Nominee Share
1 Provident fund Dr. Shwetha Shamanth 100%
(plaintiff)
2 Group Life Insurance Prema Rangaswamy 100%
and Gratuity (Group (defendant No.1)
Life, Group Life
Accident)
3 Salary Account Rangaswamy
(defendant No.2)
4 Employment Stock Dr. Shwetha Shamanth 100%
option plan/ purchase (plaintiff)
plan (700 restricted
stock units of CISCO
share)
Since defendant No.6 has discharged his liability as an employer, it is stated that the suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed against defendant No.6.
33 O.S.No.4816 of 2011
8) The defendant No.8 Bank has also filed written statement. The defendant No.8 Bank has contended that the suit filed by plaintiff claiming her share in the estate of her deceased husband Shamanth Kumar is not maintainable against the Bank. The defendant NO.8 submits that Shamanth Kumar was holding three accounts in defendant No.8, namely (1) Demat account No.50067258, (2) Trading account in No.8500735424 and (3) SB Account No.025101000792. It is relevant to state that at the time of opening SB Account in the defendant Bank, deceased Shamanth Kumar has filled prescribed nomination form nominating defendant No.1 Prema Rangaswamy as his nominee. Besides that post demise of deceased, nominee submitted an application for account closure as well as claim settlement claiming amount in the SB account. Accordingly, bank has settled an amount of 34 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 ₹.41,023.81/- which was standing in the name of deceased in accordance with Section 45ZA of Banking Regulation Act. It is submitted by defendant No.8 that nominee is an authorized person to receive the benefits of deceased as per the decision of Hon'ble Apex court in Smt. Sarbati Devi and another Vs. Smt. Usha Devi AIR 1984 SC 346. The defendant No.8 submits that 2 nd account held by deceased was Trading account meant for trading shares or otherwise. This account does not hold any sum as balance because proceeds obtained after trading will be forthwith deposited to savings accounts liked to the Trading account. Therefore, defendant No.8 contended that since Trading account was liked with SB account balance is already distributed to nominee and as such, the account is finally closed as settled. Demat account No.50067258 wherein account holder had not filed nomination, the death claim settlement 35 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 application was submitted by claimants seeking available amount, however as there was no nomination, claimants were directed to obtain succession certificate. Accordingly, Bank had rejected the application asking the claimants to furnish succession certificate. However, there was no claim made further and the available amount in the said account remains unclaimed till date. In this regard defendant No.8 Bank contended that it is always willing to disburse the amount available in Demat account of deceased subject to proper compliance along with succession certificate as required. However, plaintiff failed to comply with the claim requirement and has filed this false suit against defendant No.8. Hence, defendant No.8 contended that suit be dismissed with cost.
36 O.S.No.4816 of 2011
9. By considering pleadings and documents produced by the parties, my learned predecessor in offi ce had framed the following:-
ISSUES
1. Whether plaintiff proves that she is entitled for 1/4th share in item No.2 of the suit schedule property and 1/3rd share in item No.3 and 1/6th share in item No.4?
2. Whether plaintiff proves that she is entitled for the partition of all the amounts received by the defendants as nominees for insurance policies bearing No.613009413, 614566584, 614668403, 612420963, 614025599 and 612307160 made in the name of late R. Shamanth Kumar to an extent of ₹.11 lakhs and to an extent of ₹.40,000/- and death relief fund of 1,20,000/- US Dollars and ₹.70,000/-
received by the defendants and plaintiff is entitled for half share in the said shares as alleged?
3. Whether plaintiff proves that she is entitled for the PF and shares that may be allotted to the plaintiff by CISCO equally between plaintiff and defendants?
4. Whether defendant No.1 proves that the suit of the plaintiff is not 37 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 maintainable as alleged in para NO.1 of the written statement?
5. Whether defendant No.4 proves that it is not a necessary party to the suit and account was closed prior to the filing of this suit as alleged in para-3 of the written statement?
6. Whether defendant No.5 proves that there is no cause of action against it as alleged in the written statement?
7. Whether defendant No.6 proves that it has disbursed all the benefits of R. Shamanth Kumar as per the nominations he has made?
8. Whether defendant No.8 proves the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as alleged?
9. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for?
10. What order or decree?
10. In order to establish the case of the plaintiff, GPA holder of the plaintiff- her father got himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked 96 documents. The defendant No.2 died during the pendency of the suit. Defendant No.2(a) got herself 38 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 examined as DW.1 and but has not produced any documents.
11. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the suit item No.1 property has been purchased by deceased R. Shamanth and defendant No.2 jointly, but entire amount is paid by deceased Shamanth Kumar. Counsel has brought attention of this court to the Ex.P.96 account extract wherein EMI of housing loan has been deducted. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has also argued that the account extract makes it clear that entire loan was cleared on 12.11.2009 and R. Shamanth is the owner of the schedule item No.1 property. Therefore, learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended that the property is exclusively belonging to husband of the plaintiff. It is further argued on behalf of plaintiff that item No.2 property is purchased in the name of 39 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 Rangaswamy as per Ex.P.90 Sale Deed, but before purchase of property Shamanth Kumar was employed and he had suffi cient to means to purchase the same. The counsel for plaintiff has further argued that item No.3 property flat No.44-304 is in the name of defendant No.1 Prema Rangaswamy, but defendant No.1 has not produced any documents to show that it is her self-acquired property. Details of Source of money to purchase was not given though all the original documents were available with defendant No.1 and 2. It is argued by counsel for the plaintiff that the account extract makes it clear that taxes to the civil authorities for all 4 properties were paid from the joint S.B. Account. The counsel for the plaintiff has argued that item No.4 property flat bearing No.804 is purchased jointly by plaintiff and her husband and as such, other defendants are not having any right over the properties. The property was 40 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 acquired by obtaining loan from ING Vysya Bank and in view of non-co-operation of defendant No.1 and 2 the property has been sold in public auction and amount is deposited in the court. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that item No.5 property is the amount in Citi Bank which is drawn by defendant No.1 and 2 after death of Shamanth Kumar and defendant No.1 and 2 have received an amount of ₹.54,00,000/- as death relief from CISCO wherein husband of the plaintiff was employed. The counsel for plaintiff has argued that item No.7, 8 and 9 properties and insurance amount were received by defendant No.1 and 2 as nominees but they have not distributed the same to the plaintiff. Likewise item No.10 and 11 properties were received by plaintiff. It is submitted by the counsel for the plaintiff that by receiving the amount stated in item No.5 to 9 properties, item NO.12 to 19 were purchased and the 41 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 shares in the name of 1 st defendant is belonging to husband of the plaintiff. Therefore, learned counsel for plaintiff contended that the nominee is required to share the amount to the legal heir and plaintiff being legal heir is entitled for share in item No.5 to 19 properties. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied following decision.
1) Reported judgment in RFA 100004 of 2025
2) 2008 AIR SCW 1525
3) AIR 2008 SC 1467
4) Hindu Widows Remarriage and property Act 1989.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for defendants has argued that he has got no claim over item No.4 property and whatever amount received may be given to plaintiff. The learned counsel has argued that item No.2 property is the separate property of defendant 42 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 No.2 Rangaswamy, whereas item No.3 is separate property of defendant No.1 and as such, plaintiff is not having any right, title or interest over the suit property. The learned counsel for the defendants has contended that as per Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act the property in the name of 1 st defendant is her absolute property and as such, neither the plaintiff nor any family member are having right, title or interest over the same. The learned counsel has relied upon decision reported in ILR 2008 KAR page 3453 and AIR 2009 SC 2561.
13. I have considered the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the both the parties to the suit, in light of arguments advanced before me and my findings on the above issues are:-
Issue No.1: Plaintiff is entitled for share in item No.1, 2 and 4 properties 43 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 Issue No.2: Plaintiff is entitled for share in item No.5 to 11 properties Issue No.3: In the Affi rmative Issue No.4: In the Negative Issue No.5: In the Negative Issue No.6: In the Negative Issue No.7: In the Affi rmative Issue No.8: In the Negative Issue No.9: Plaintiff is entitled for partition of schedule item No.1 to 11 properties Issue No.10: As per final order, for the following:-
REASONS
14. Issue No.1 :- This issue is with respect to right of the plaintiff over suit schedule property. This suit is filed by the plaintiff Shwetha Shamanth as a widow of R. Shamanth claiming that her deceased husband had share which has been inherited by her. The admitted facts in this suit are as under:
I. Sale Deed of item No.1 property is in joint name of defendant No.2 Rangaswamy and deceased R. Shamanth Kumar.44 O.S.No.4816 of 2011
II. Item No.2 property is in the name of defendant No.2 Rangaswamy.
III. Item No.3 property is standing in the name of defendant No.3.
IV. Item No.4 property is jointly purchased by plaintiff and her husband R. Shamanth which has been sold in public auction and balance amount is deposited in the court.
V. Amount mentioned in item No.5 to 9 are received by defendant No.1 and 2 as nominees, and VI. Item No.10 & 11 were received by plaintiff from CISCO.
1) The dispute is whether item No.3 property is a separate property of defendant No.1.
2) Whether plaintiff who is remarried is having right in item No.1 & 2 property in view of death of defendant NO.2.
3) Whether plaintiff can claim right in item No.5 to 9 as defendants are nominees in respect of item No.5 to 9 properties.
15. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff GPA holder of the plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and he has 45 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 produced 96 documents. Defendant No.2(a) is examined as DW.1, no documents are marked on behalf of the defendants. I have perused the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff.
16. Discussion regarding title to suit item No.1 property Suit item No.1 is property bearing flat No.604 measuring 1471 square feet with open car parking place situated at Shankari Apartments, Banashankari 3 rd stage, Bengaluru. The said property is purchased as per Ex.P.26 Sale Deed dated 30.03.2004. Sale Deed shows that property is purchased for a consideration amount of ₹.1,81,551/-. Sale Deed is registered in the name of defendant No.2 Rangaswamy and Shamanth Kumar. Ex.P.8 property extract produced shows that property is standing in the name of R. Shamanth Kumar. But Sale Deed makes it clear that husband of the plaintiff R. 46 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 Shamanth Kumar and defendant No.2 are the joint purchasers. The plaintiff claims that entire property is belonging to her husband as entire sale consideration amount was paid by Shamanth Kumar. If plaint averments are concerned then defendant No.2 is only a name lender in whose name the property is purchased jointly. To appreciate this, I have perused Ex.P.27 the document issued by Citi Bank. It is clear from Ex.P.27 and account extract shows to the same that on 17.10.2003 R. Shamanth Kumar has obtained loan of ₹.16,00,000/- for purchasing property No.604, Sri. Shankari, 6 th floor, Banashankari 3 rd stage, Bengaluru. ₹.16,00,000/- loan was repayable with 182 installments. It is clear from the Ex.P.96 account extract of R. Shamanth Kumar that EMIs were regularly paid out of the salary and entire loan was closed on 12.11.2009. So, it is clear from Ex.P.27 and P.96 that entire amount for purchase of schedule item 47 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 No.1 property is paid by deceased Shamanth Kumar only. 2 nd defendant has not shown that he has contributed for purchase of item No.1 property by paying money. No documents are produced by defendants to show 2 nd defendant has made any contribution towards purchase of property. Hence, if home loan account of R. Shamanth Kumar marked at Ex.P.27 and Ex.P.96 S.B. Account are considered then Shamanth Kumar is the purchaser of suit item No.1 property and 2 nd defendant has only lend his name to purchase the property jointly. 2 nd defendant has no independent right in the item No.1 property and Shamanth Kumar is the owner of the property as he has paid entire consideration amount and repaid loan obtained for the purpose of payment of consideration by way of EMI through his salary account. Hence, in my considered view the property item No.1 is the separate property of R. Shamanth Kumar. As per 48 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 plaint averments R. Shamanth Kumar died on 10.01.2011. R. Shamanth Kumar is survived by his wife plaintiff Shwetha Shamanth and mother Prema Rangaswamy being Class-I heirs. Father is not having any right in the property of son in the presence of class-I heir and as such, 2 nd defendant had no right over item No.1 property. Therefore, Item No.1 property is required to be divided between plaintiff and defendant No.1 Prema Rangaswamy and as such, both will have ½ share each in item No.1 property.
17. Discussion regarding Item No.2 property Item No.2 property is flat No.304 measuring 1200 square feet situated at Kiran Comforts, kathriguppe, Banashankari 3 rd stage, Bengaluru. Item No.2 property is purchased on 12.11.2001 as per Ex.P.90 Sale Deed. Sale consideration amount was shown as ₹.8,70,000/-. Entire sale consideration amount is paid 49 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 through cheque. R. Shamanth Kumar has not paid any amount for the purchase of item No.2 property. If Ex.P.96 salary account of R. Shamanth Kumar are considered then at the time of purchase of item No.2 property he had no such financial capability to pay ₹.8,70,000/-. 2 nd defendant was income tax payee and he had suffi cient means and therefore, item No.2 property is separate property of defendant No.2. At the time of filing of the suit defendant No.2 was alive and he died during the pendency of the suit. The plaintiff has admitted that after death of Shamanth Kumar, original plaintiff is remarried. The defendants have taken a contention that since plaintiff is remarried, she will not acquire any right in item No.2 property as it was separate property of defendant No.2 who is survived by his wife defendant No.1 and daughter-def No.2(a). Now the question for consideration is whether plaintiff can succeed to the 50 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 property of her father-in-law if she remarriages and was not the member of the family at the time of death of father-in-law -defendant No.2.
18. Section 24 of Hindu Succession Act is omitted with effect from 09.09.2005. 2 nd defendant died after 09.09.2005 and as such the amended provisions of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005 is applicable and Section 24 is omitted. As per Section 24 of Hindu Succession Act 1956, before amendment makes it clear that any person who is related to an intestate as a widow of a predeceased son, widow predeceased son of a predeceased son, or widow of brother shall not be entitled to succeed to the property of the intestate as such widow if on the date of succession opens she is remarried. After 09.09.2005 Section 24 is omitted, plaintiff is related to intestate-def No.2 as a widow of predeceased son & in 51 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 view omission of sec.24 there is no bar for plaintiff to succeed even though she remarried, as such she is entitled to succeed as a class-I heir of deceased. Widow of a predeceased son is a Class-I heir as per provisions of Hindu Succession Act. So, remarriage of plaintiff cannot be a bar as she is related to intestate - defendant No.2 as widow of predeceased son. Though in the written statement def.No.2(a) contended that def.No.2 has executed WILL in respect to his properties, no WILL is produced nor any attesting witnesses are examined to prove the due execution & attestation of WILL. Hence claim of def.No.2(a) is not sustainable in view non-production of WILL and non- examination of attesting witnesses. Therefore, in item No.2 property plaintiff will also have share. Defendant No.2 is survived by his wife defendant No.1, daughter- defendant No.2(a) and plaintiff widow of predeceased son and therefore, plaintiff, defendant No.1 and 52 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 defendant No.2(a) are having 1/3 rd share each in item NO.2 property.
19. Discussion regarding Item No.3 property Item No.4 property is standing in the name of 1 st defendant. No documents are produced either by plaintiff or by defendants to show how the properties acquired by defendant No.1. It is stated in the written statement that property is purchased by defendant No.1. Under provisions of Sec.14 of Hindu Succession Act property purchased by female Hindu is considered as her separate property. Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act reads as under:
14. Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property.--
(1)Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner.
Explanation.--In this sub-section, "property" 53 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act.
(2)Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift or under a will or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a civil court or under an award where the terms of the gift, will or other instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe a restricted estate in such property.
20. Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, generally aims to convert a Hindu woman's limited ownership of property into absolute ownership, regardless of how she acquired it. However, Section 14(2) carves out an exception, stating that if a woman's limited ownership is explicitly created by a legal instrument (like a will or gift deed) that specifies restricted rights, then Section 14(1) does not apply, 54 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 and the woman's ownership remains limited as per the instrument. In this case claim is covered sub-section (1) of section 14 as property is purchased. Therefore, courts cannot inquire into the source of income if the property was acquired through any means that would typically grant absolute ownership under Section 14(1). As per Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act, any property purchased by or in the name of female member of the family is considered as her self- acquired property. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Vijayakumar Vs. Vanajakshi reported in Laws (KAR) 2021-12-34 has held that property purchased in the name of wife is a self-acquired property under provisions of Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act.
21. As per Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act property in the name of female is considered as her 55 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 self-acquired property. No documents are produced by plaintiff to show that her husband has contributed amount for purchase of item No.3 property in the name of defendant No.1. So, in the absence of any material to show that property was purchased for the benefit of entire family, this court cannot hold that the property is the joint family property. Therefore, in my view from the available evidence it cannot be held that plaintiff is having share in item No.3 property.
22. Discussion regarding item No.4 property Item No.4 property is jointly purchased by plaintiff and deceased Shamanth Kumar. There is no dispute in respect of item No.4 property. Item No.4 property is purchased by availing loan of ₹.55,00,000/- and monthly EMI was ₹.55,838/-. Property is purchased on 07.08.2008 in the joint name of plaintiff and Shamanth Kumar. The loan amount was not paid 56 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 and hence, property has been sold in public auction. As per order sheet dated 09.12.2020 it is clear that defendant No.7 has sold item No.2 property and remaining amount is with defendant No.7 from 22.12.2014. The defendant No.7 was directed to deposited excess amount along with simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum, considering the rate of interest on FD in the year 2014 till deposit of the same in the court. On 05.02.2021 an amount of ₹.32,17,096/- is deposited by defendant No.7 and as per order dated 19.03.2021 the amount of ₹.32,17,096/- which is the excess sale proceeds are deposited in the Bank. So, at present item No.4 property is not available for partition, but the excess amount deposited in the court is available. Out of this excess amount co-owner is having ½ share and as a legal heir of R. Shamanth Kumar, plaintiff is having ½ share in the share of deceased & totally she 57 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 is having 3/4th share in the item No.4 property whereas defendant No.1 is having 1/4th share in item No.4 property.
23. With these observation, I am of the opinion that plaintiff is having ½ share in item No.1 property, 1/3 rd share in item No.2 property and 3/4 th share in item No.4 property whereas in item No.3 property she is not having any share, which is considered as self- acquired property of 2 nd defendant. Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered in 'partly Affi rmatively' holding that in respect of item No.1, 2 and 4 property plaintiff is having share and in item No.3 property she is not having right.
24. Issue No.2:- This issue is framed with respect to item No.5 to 9 properties. Item No.5 is amount in Citi Bank which was withdrawn by defendant No.1 and 58 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 2 after death of Shamanth Kumar. The account extract clearly shows that cheque was honored after death of Shamanth Kumar in favour of defendant No.1 and 2. So, defendant No.1 and 2 by knowing full well that their son is no more have drawn the amount by using the cheques. It is not the case of the defendant No.1 and 2 that Shamanth Kumar was owing any money to defendant no.1 and 2 and in order to repay the same he has issued a cheque. Remaining amount is withdrawn by defendant No.1 and 2 as a nominee. Likewise item No.6 property is a death relief/ insurance from CISCO, the employer of R. Shamanth Kumar. An amount of ₹.54,00,000/- is received by defendant No.1 and 2. Likewise item No.7 property is arrears of salary of ₹.70,000/- which is received by defendant No.2. Item No.8 is LIC policy amount of Shamanth Kumar wherein he has made nomination in favour of defendant No.1 and 2 which is received by 59 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 defendant No.1 and 2. Item no.9 is also amounts standing in the account of R. Shamanth Kumar in the ICICI Bank which is received by defendant No.1 and 2. 25. Receipt of amount by def.No.1 & 2 mentioned at item No.5 to 9 are not in dispute. Now the question for consideration is whether nominee is having absolute right over the amount or nominee is a trustee required to distribute the amount between legal heirs. Defendant No.2 was not the legal heir of R. Shamanth Kumar under provisions of Hindu Succession Act as deceased was survived by Claas-I heir wife and mother. So, plaintiff and defendant No.1 are only the persons who are entitled to receive the amount. The amount mentioned at Item No.5 to 9 were received by defendant No.1 and 2 but they have not distributed the same between legal heirs. 60 O.S.No.4816 of 2011
26. In the case of Smt Sarabati Devi & Another Vs Smt Usha Devi (1984) 1 SCC 424, Hon'ble Apex court has held that a nomination under the Life Insurance Act, 1938, did not contemplate a statutory testament and the amount paid to a nominee on the death of the policy holder would form part of the estate of the deceased. This would eventually devolve upon the heirs in accordance with the personal law of succession applicable to the deceased. In the case of Ram Chander Talwar & Anr. v. Devender Kumar Talwar & Ors., (2010) 10 SCC 671 Hon'ble Apex court had rejected the argument that the non-obstante clause granted the nominee absolute ownership of the subject matter to the exclusion of legal heirs. Interpretation of the general words and phrases used in a stat ute must be according to the objects of the statute and not read in isolation. Application of the 61 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 non-obstante clause must be in accordance with the scheme of the legislation. Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the non-obstante clause in this case served the singular purpose of allowing the company to vest the shares upon the nominee to the exclusion of any other person to discharge its liability against diverse claims by the legal heirs of the deceased shareholders. This arrangement would be temporary, until the legal heirs have settled the affairs of the testator and are ready to register the transmission of shares, by due process of succession law.
27. Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of SMT. NEELAVVA @ NEELAMMA W/O NEELAPPA SOMANAKATTI Vs SMT. CHANDRAVVA @ CHANDRAKALA @ HEMA (RFA 100471 of 2023 Date of Disposal 20.02.2025) by referring to Judgment of Hon'ble Apex court in Shakti Yezdani & Anr. V 62 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1071 has held as under :
36. Keeping in mind, the ratio laid down in Shakti Yezdani's case supra, and the recommendations made by the Law Commission of India, and partial acceptance and partial (implied) rejection of the recommendations by the Parliament, and the application of Heydon's Rule for the reasons assigned above, this Court has to conclude that amended Section 39 is not intended to override the provisions of law relating to succession.
37. However, Sections 39(7) and (8) should carry some meaning and cannot be rendered otiose. By taking into consideration the recommendations of the Law Commission, the effect of ratio in Shakti Yezdani's case supra, which has held that the nominee will not acquire a better right than the natural heir, this Court is of the view that the expression "beneficial interest" appearing in Section 39(7) and "beneficial title" appearing in Section 39(8) should be interpreted to say, that such nominee/s or their legal representatives recognised in Sections 39(7) and 39 (8) will get beneficial title over the benefits flowing from the insurance policy, if the testamentary and non-testamentary heirs do not claim the 63 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 benefits flowing from the insurance policy.
To put it differently, under the unamended provision, the nominee had an obligation to distribute the benefits flowing from the policy to the legal heirs. Under Section 39(7), there is no such obligation as long as there is no claim by the legal heirs. In the absence of any claim by legal heirs, the title vests in beneficiary nominee. However, if there is a claim by the legal heir/s, then the nominee's claim has to yield to the personal law governing succession.
28. It is clear from the above decisions & provisions of Insurance Act that Nominees Are Trustees, Not Owners, they hold assets temporarily until passed to the rightful heirs, in the case of Life Insurance and EPF: nominees hold these funds in trust, while legal heirs are the real owners. A Company's Temporary Holder Clause: The law's terms like vesting mean only that companies can transfer shares to a nominee for simplicity, but it doesn't grant permanent ownership. From insurance policies to joint 64 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 stock holdings, legal heirs still get their rightful share, no matter who the nominee is. Hence in my opinion nominee who receives the amount will hold the amount as a trustee and is required to distribute the same among the legal heirs. An amount of ₹.77,50,000/- was received by defendant No.1 and 2 as a nominee and as a death benefit of deceased R. Shamanth Kumar wherein plaintiff is having ½ share . Hence, plaintiff is entitled for an amount of ₹.38,75,000/- out of item No.5 to 9.
29. The plaintiff has received ₹.4,54,000/- i.e., item No.10 and 11 from CISCO, wherein 1st defendant is having ½ share. So, totally plaintiff was entitled for ₹.41,02,000/- from item NO.5 to 11 properties whereas she has received ₹.4,54,000/-. The remaining amount of ₹.36,48,000/- which is received by defendant No.1 and 2 is required to be repaid to 65 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 plaintiff. It is important to note here that item No.4 property was sold and amount was deposited before the court. Out of which the defendant No.1 had 1/4th share. So, while considering the release of same, the amount payable to plaintiff is required to be considered. The defendant No.1 and 2 have received the amount and they are liable to pay the same. Hence, in my considered opinion plaintiff is entitled for ½ share in item No.5 to 11 properties also. Accordingly, issue No.2 is answered in favour of the plaintiff.
30. Issue No.3:- This issue is framed with respect to claim of the plaintiff that she is entitled for share in PF and shares of CISCO which will be allotted on account of death of her husband R. Shamanth Kumar. The PF amount and shares of CISCO were received by plaintiff only and as discussed while 66 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 answering issue No.2, the nominee is only a trustee and is required to distribute the same among the legal heirs. Therefore, the defendant No.1 being mother and plaintiff being wife of deceased R. Shamanth Kumar are entitled for equal share in PF and shares of CISCO. Accordingly, issue No.3 is required to be answered in Affi rmative.
31. Issue No.4:- That, this issue is framed with respect to para No.1 of the written statement filed by the defendants. The defendant has contended that item No.1 to 3 properties are purchased by defendant No.1 and 2 out of their own funds and hence, the claim is not sustainable. However, while answering issue No.1 to 3, I have concluded that item No.1 property is purchased by R. Shamanth Kumar, item No.2 property is purchased by Rangaswamy-def No.2 herein and in view of his death 67 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 same devolved upon defendant No.1, defendant No.2(a) and plaintiff equally and item No.3 is separate property of defendant No.1. Therefore, the contention of the defendant No.1 that suit with respect to item NO.1 to 3 properties are not maintainable cannot be considered as out of three properties plaintiff is having share in two properties. Therefore, this issue is required to be answered in Negative.
32. Issue No.5:- This issue is framed with respect to contention taken by defendant No.4 Citi Bank stating that it is not necessary party to this suit as account was closed prior to filing of this suit as alleged in para No.3 of written statement filed by defendant No.4. The plaintiff has clearly stated that after death of R. Shamanth Kumar the amount was transferred from his account. Para No.12 of the plaint plaintiff has narrated out of Rs.12,10,000/-, 68 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 Rs.11,40,000/- has been withdrawn in the month of February 2011, though her husband died on 10.01.2011. So, whether transaction made after death of R. Shamanth Kumar was valid and whether the account can be operated after death of account holder was the question and for deciding the said question Citi Bank was proper party to this suit. Therefore, in my considered view just because amount is already paid to nominee and the other amounts withdrawn prior to filing of the suit, defendant No.4 cannot be considered as not necessary or proper party to this suit. In my opinion, since question of withdrawal by defendant No.1 and 2 after death of Shamanth Kumar is questioned, Citi Bank was proper party to this suit. But, no relief is claimed against Citi Bank. The Citi Bank was made as only a proper party whose presence will helpful to decide the dispute 69 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 between the parties. Accordingly, I answer this issue in the 'Negative'.
33. Issue No.6:- This issue is framed with respect to contention of the defendant No.5 Senior Divisional Manager LIC of India. It is true that death claim made by defendant No.1 and 2 were settled by LIC on 28.02.2011, 22.02.2011, 23.05.2011 and 17.02.2011. But, payment of amount to nominee was questioned in this suit. Therefore, the defendant No.5's presence was necessary to adjudicate the dispute it being the insurer. Whether there is a valid nomination or not was required to be considered by this court to uphold the payments made. Therefore, LIC of India was proper party to this suit and hence, I am of the opinion that issue framed is required to be answered in the 'Negative'.
70 O.S.No.4816 of 2011
34. Issue No.7:- This issue is framed Whether CISCO is necessary party to this suit. CISCO System India Limited is a company wherein the deceased R. Shamanth Kumar was employed with. It is true that company has already paid death benefit, provident fund, group insurance and amount due in salary account. Therefore, the presence of defendant No.6 was not necessary, but for the purpose of adjudicating what are the amounts payable to deceased and what is the amount paid to deceased its presence was necessary. Hence, the defendant No. 6 was proper party to this suit, though amount is paid to nominee and CISCO is made as party to this suit. No relief is sought against CISCO, it is made as party only to provide necessary information as CISCO is a private Limited Company. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that defendant No.6 has proved that it has distributed all the benefits of R. Shamanth Kumar as per the 71 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 nomination made and Hence, this issue is answered in the Affi rmative.
35. Issue No.8:- This issue is framed with respect to mortgagee of item No.4 property. When suit was filed loan was pending and property was not sold. In a suit for partition mortgagee is a proper party and as such, the suit is maintainable against defendant No.8. The defendant No.8 has stated that balance in S.B. Account and connected account has been distributed to the nominee/ defendant No.1. As far as demat account bearing No.50067258 is concerned, the defendant has contended that said demat account is required to be settled on furnishing succession certificate & it will be settled. So, the suit against defendant No.8 is maintainable since he is holding the demat account of deceased R. Shamanth 72 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 Kumar. Therefore, in my considered opinion the suit against defendant No.8 is maintainable.
36. Issue No.9:- This issue is framed with respect to entitlement of reliefs claimed. While answering issue No.1 to 3, I have concluded that, plaintiff being widow/ wife of R. Shamanth Kumar is entitled to succeed his share in the suit item No.1 and 4 properties along with defendant No.1. I have also concluded that though plaintiff is remarried, she is entitled to succeed property of deceased defendant No.2 as widow of Shamanth Kumar in view of deletion of Section 24 of Hindu Succession Act, and she is also entitled to succeed item No.5 to 11 properties along with defendant No.1.
37. I have also considered the claim of the plaintiff in respect of suit Item No.12 to 19 properties. 73 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 The item No.12 to 19 are the shares standing in the name of defendant No.1 herein. As per plaint averments husband of the plaintiff by name R. Shamanth Kumar has invested in the shares and securities mentioned in item No.12 to 19 in the name of defendant No.1 and 2. The item No.12 to 19 are extracted as under:-
Sl.No. Company No.of Per share Total value Order date Shares Rs. Rs.
1. WIPRO 500 437.45 218,725 09.05.2011
2. Reliance 500 962.85 481,425 09.05.2011
3. TCS 200 1144.26 228,852 11.05.2011
4. Grasim 50 2238-00 111,900 19.05.2011
5. Reliance 100 940-00 94,000 03.06.2011
6. TCS 100 1132-00 113,200 26.05.2011
7. LT 50 1720-00 86,000 10.06.2011
8. Reliance 100 870-00 87,000 17.06.2011
38. As per Ex.P.91 to 95 Kotak Securities have furnished the details of shares held by defendant no.1 74 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 Prema Rangaswamy. As per Ex.P.92 defendant No.1 is holding following shares:-
1. Adani Enterprises Limited EQ new FV- 13
2. Adani Green Energy Limited EQ- 9
3. Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Limited EQ New Rs.2/- 18
4. Adani Power Limited EQ-224
5. Adani Total Gas limited EQ New FV Rs.1/- 13
6. Adani Transmission Limited EQ-13
7. Adinath Textiles Limited EQ-100
8. Aditya Birla Capital Limited EQ-350
9. Barak Valley Cements Limited EQ-149
10. Grasim Industries limited EQ New FV Rs.2/- 250
11. ICICI Bank Ltd., EQ New FV Rs.2/- 561
12. JET Airways (India) Ltd EQ-6
13. Jyothy Labs Ltd., EQ New Rs.1/- 200
14. Larsen and Toubro Ltd., EQ New FV Rs.2/- 112
15. NHPC Ltd., EQ-174
16. NIPPON India Mutual Fund ETF Gold BeEs-1500
17. Precision Electronics Ltd., EQ New FV Rs.10/- 7
18. Raymond Ltd., EQ-100
19. Reliance Industries Ltd., EQ-1200
20. Reliance Power Ltd., EQ, New Rs.10/- 24
21. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., EQ New FV Re.1/ - 100
22. TATA Consultancy Services Ltd., EQ New FV Re.1/- 600
23. WIPRO Ltd., EQ F.V. Rs.2/- 1226.75 O.S.No.4816 of 2011
39. As per serial No.12 to 19 shares of Reliance is 700 but as per Ex.P.2 1,200 reliance shares are held by defendant No.1, as per Ex.P.92 defendant No.1 is holding 1,226 shares of WIPRO, 600 shares of TCS, 250 shares of Grasim Industries and 112 shares of LT.
40. Apart from this, defendant No.1 is also holding shares of other companies mentioned above. Whether the shares were independently held by defendant No.1 or it is an investment made by defendant No.1 herself or husband of plaintiff had invested in the name of defendant No.1 is required to be considered. From the statements made in the plaint it is clear that shares were purchased as under:-
a) 500 share of WIPRO was purchased on 11.05.2011.
b) Reliance shares by purchased on 12.05.2011, the extent of 700 shares. Opening balance of shares were 77.
76 O.S.No.4816 of 2011
c) shares of TCS were purchased on 13.05.2011 by defendant No.1.
d) shares of Grace Industries and LT were also purchased on 14.06.2011.
41. As per plaint averments the husband of the plaintiff is died on 10.01.2011 itself. So, this court cannot hold that the shares purchased after 10.01.2011 are invested made by husband of the plaintiff in the name of defendant No.1 herein. The available records does not shows that defendant No.1 has received amount from the death benefits of her deceased son as on the date of she making investment in the shares. Therefore, this court cannot hold that shares mentioned in Ex.P.91 to 95 were purchased by husband of the plaintiff and she is having share in the same. The evidence adduced also does not show that investment in the shares are made by Shamanth Kumar as it is made after death of husband of the plaintiff and hence, in my considered 77 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 opinion the plaintiff has failed to show that husband of the plaintiff has made investments in the shares shown in Ex.P.91 to 95 and plaintiff is having share in the same.
42. As discussed above, defendant No.1 and 2 have received item No.5 to 9 properties and in view of death of defendant No.1 the amount received by defendant No.1 is required to be distributed also. The defendant No.2 had not succeed to the estate of deceased Shamanth Kumar as he was class-II heir and he was duty bound to distribute the amount to the plaintiff and defendant No.1 who are class-I heir. Hence, in item No.5 to 9 properties which is received by defendant No.1 and 2, plaintiff is having ½ share being wife of deceased R. Shamanth Kumar and defendant No.1 being mother of Shamanth Kumar is having ½ share. As far as item No.10 and 11 are 78 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 concerned, plaintiff has received the amount wherein defendant No.1 is having ½ share. Likewise in item No.4 property which is sold in public auction, excess amount is required to be divided between both & plaintiff & defendant No.1 and plaintiff having 3/4 th share.
43. As discussed above in item No.5 to 11 properties share of plaintiff is ₹.41,02,000/-. Out of which she has received ₹.4,54,000/- and is entitle for ₹.36,48,000/-. An amount of ₹.32,17,096/- which excess amount recovered by sale of item No.4 property wherein plaintiff is entitle for 3/4 th share i.e., ₹.24,12,822/- and def.No.1 is entitle for 1/4 th share i.e., ₹.8,04,274/-. Def.No.1 & 2 have received ₹.77,50,000/- item No.5 to 9 whereas they were entitle for ₹.41,02,000/-. The defendant No.1 is required to pay remaining amount of ₹.36,48,000/- to 79 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 plaintiff. The entire amount deposited by def.No.7 along with interest can be ordered to released in favour of plaintiff and def.No.1 is required to be directed to balance amount ₹.28,43,726/- (36,48,000- 8,04,274) to the plaintiff.
44. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that plaintiff is having ½ share in item No.1 property, 1/3 rd share in item No.2 property, 3/4 th share in item No.4 property and is entitled for ½ share in item No.5 to 11 properties. Plaintiff is not entitle for share in item No.3, 12 to 19 properties. With these observation, I am of the opinion that plaintiff is entitled for relief claimed. Accordingly, this issue is answered in partly affi rmative.
45. Issue No.10:- In view of the discussions and conclusion arrived at above issues, suit of the 80 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 plaintiff is liable to be decreed in part. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed in part.
It is ordered and declared that plaintiff is entitled for half (½) share in item No.1 and 1/3 rd share in item No.2 schedule properties.
It is further ordered and declared that plaintiff is having 3/4 th share in item No.4 property/ excess auction sale amount deposited in the court.
It is further ordered and declared that plaintiff is having half (½) share in item No.5 to 11 properties.
It is further ordered and declared that defendant No.1 is also having half (½) share in item No.1 and 5 to 9 properties, 1/3 rd share in suit item No.2 property and 1/4 th share in item No.4 property / excess auction sale amount deposited in the court.81 O.S.No.4816 of 2011
It is further ordered and declared that defendant No.2(a) is having 1/3 rd share in suit item No.2 property.
It is ordered & decree that the amount received by defendant No.1 & 2 in respect of item No.5 to 9 is required to be shared with plaintiff. The def.No.1 is liable to pay an amount of ₹.28,43,726/- to the plaintiff.
The amount deposited by def.No.7 available in the court along with interest is ordered to be released in favour of plaintiff.
Suit of the plaintiff in respect of item No.3 and 12 to 19 is dismissed.
Parties to bear their own cost.
Draw preliminary decree
accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcript thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in open Court, on this the 4th day of August, 2025.) (BHAT MANJUNATH NARAYAN) XLIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru 82 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff:-
P.W.1 B.N. Lakshmipathaiah
II. List of witnesses examined on behalf of
defendants:-
D.W.1 Smt. Vinutha
III. List of documents exhibited on behalf of plaintiff:-
Ex.P.1 General Power of Attorney
Ex.P.2 computer generated
appointment order
Ex.P.3 computer generated letter
dated 17.9.2010
Ex.P.4 Katha Certificate
Ex.P.5 & 6 Katha extract
Ex.P.7 Katha extract
Ex.P.8 Katha Certificate
Ex.P.9 tax paid receipt
Ex.P.10 B register extract
Ex.P.11 to 6 policy particulars
16
Ex.P.17 loan sanctioned letter
83 O.S.No.4816 of 2011
Ex.P.18 to 4 letter written by plaintiff to
21
2nd defendant
Ex.P.22 to 3 EMI paid receipts
24
Ex.P.25 Katha extract
Ex.P.26 certified copy of the sale deed
dated 30.3.2004
Ex.P.27 Statement of account issued by
Citi Bank pertaining to
R.Shamanth Kumar, the
husband of plaintiff
Ex.P.28 Receipt issued by Vokkaligara
sanga towards development of
V.S.hospital.
Ex.P.29 Letter issued by SBI dated
01.06.2012
Ex.P.29(a) Covering letter issued by SBI Ex.P.30 Letter forwarded by PW1 to Manager, SBI, Bank dated 08.08.2013 Ex.P.31 Letter issued by Fidelity investment to plaintiff dated 17.01.2012 Ex.P.32 Letter issued by plaintiff to Copurer age Management services Ltd dated 09.01.2012 Ex.P.33 Statement of account issued by Fidelity international pertaining 84 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 to R.Shamanthakumar, husband of plaintiff Ex.P.34 Letter issued by ING Vysya Bank to plaintiff dated 19.10.2012 Ex.P.34(a) Covering letter Ex.P.35 to 30 EMI receipts 65 Ex.P.66 Letter issued by SBI to plaintiff dated 16.03.2011 Ex.P.67 Letter issued by SBI to plaintiff dated 15.02.2013 Ex.P.68 Statement of account pertaining to SBI Bank, Banashankari II stage Ex.P.69 Office copy of legal notice dated 24.04.2013 Ex.P.69(a) Covering letter Ex.P.70 Letter issued by plaintiff to Manager, ING Vysya Bank dated 05.08.2014 Ex.P.70(a) 2 Postal receipts and (b) Ex.P.71 Encumbrance Certificate Ex.P.72 Tax paid receipt to the Civic authority Ex.P.73 to 12 Tax paid receipts 84 Ex.P.85 to Acknowledgments for having 89 tax paid receipts 85 O.S.No.4816 of 2011 Ex.P.90 Absolute Sale Deed dated 12.11.2001 Ex.P. 91 Clint master list in respect of the shares mentioned in item no.12 to 19 of the suit schedule.
Ex.P.92 Holding valuation in respect of the afore said shares Ex.P.93 Statement of holdings in respect of said shares.
Ex.P.94 and Transaction statements Ex.P.95 Ex.P.96 Account extract of Citi bank IV List of documents exhibited on behalf of defendants:
NIL (BHAT MANJUNATH NARAYAN) XLIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru 86 O.S.No.4816 of 2011