Karnataka High Court
Mrs Swarnalatha Gupta vs Mr Vijay Prakash @ Putta Prakash on 5 July, 2022
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1642 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
1. MRS SWARNALATHA GUPTA
W/O.MR.VSV GUPTA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
RESIDING AT TILAK STORES,
ASHOKA ROAD, SIDLAGATTA AND ALSO AT,
NO.741, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST MAIN BSK 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU-560070
2. MR V S V GUPTA
S/O.LATE V.SURYA NARAYANA SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
RESIDING AT TILAK STORES,
ASHOKA ROAD,
SIDLAGATTA AND ALSO AT
NO.741, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST MAIN, BSK 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU-560070.
..APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAJAGOPALA NAIDU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR VIJAY PRAKASH @ PUTTA PRAKASH
@PRAKASH PUTTA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
S/O.LATE PUTTA VENKATESHAIAH,
RESIDING AT FLAT No.B, Door No.14/9,
SRI.RAGHAVENDRA APARTMENTS,
1ST FLOOR, 5TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN,
BENGALURU.-560 027
2
2. MRS LAKSHMI SRINIVAS
W/O.M.V.SRINIVASA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/A: No.2652, 5TH MAIN, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT,
2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 078
AND ALSO R/A: `SHANTHI DHAMA'
3RD MAIN, 6TH CROSS,
ANJANI WEST EXTENSION,
CHINTAMANI -563 125.
..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.R.ABHINAV, ADVOCATE FOR R-1,
SRI.G.R.MOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 R/W
SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.04.2019
PASSED IN P&SC NO.152/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 372 OF THE
INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT.
THIS RFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 15.04.2019 passed in P & SC No.152/2014, whereby the said petition filed by respondent No.2 against respondent No.1 was allowed by the trial court, thereby directing issuance of succession certificate in relation to the movables of deceased Aravinda Putta @ Aravinda 3 Kumar jointly and equally in the ratio 50:50 in favour of both respondents.
2. Heard Sri.Rajagopala Naidu, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri.R.Abhinav, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri.G.R.Mohan, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. The material on record discloses that respondents 1 and 2 are the brother and sister respectively of deceased Arvinda Putta @ Aravinda Kumar, who expired in a road traffic accident that occurred on 23.06.2012, in which his wife Smt.Reena Putta and their children Nisha Putta and Nitish Putta also expired. The aforesaid petition was filed by respondent No.2 (petitioner before the trial court), the sister of Arvinda Putta against respondent No.1 (respondent before the trial court), brother of Arvinda Putta, inter alia contending that the subject properties were owned and possessed by late Aravinda Putta @ Aravinda Kumar at the time of his death, upon which, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 being his brother 4 and sister succeeded to the same as his class-II heirs and were entitled to issuance of succession certificate jointly in their favour. The respondent No.2 examined herself as PW-1 and Exs.P1 to P18 were marked. The respondent No.1 did not adduce any oral evidence; however, documentary evidence at Exs.R1 to R6 were marked on his behalf.
4. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the subject properties were owned and possessed by late Aravinda Putta @ Aravinda Kumar at the time of his death and upon his demise, the respondents herein who were his siblings / class-II heirs under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short 'the said Act of 1956') were entitled to half share (50% share) in the subject properties and accordingly, proceeded to pass the impugned order issuing succession certificate in favour of respondents 1 and 2 to the extent of their half share / 50% share each in the subject properties. 5
5. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants, who contend that they are none other than the parents of Smt.Reena Putta, wife of the deceased Aravinda Putta @ Aravinda Kumar, who also expired in the very same road accident that occurred on 23.06.2012.
6. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the appeal and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the appellants submit that Aravinda Putta @ Aravinda Kumar was older than his wife Smt.Reena Putta and in view of the presumption available in Section 21 of the said Act of 1956, which envisages that in the case of simultaneous deaths, the older person is presumed to have died earlier, it has to be presumed that Aravinda Putta @ Aravinda Kumar predeceased his wife Smt.Reena Putta, albeit in the same accident and upon his demise, the subject properties devolved upon Smt.Reena Putta and upon her demise subsequently, the subject properties devolved upon her parents, the appellants herein who became entitled to the subject properties 6 absolutely and to the exclusion of the respondents herein. It is therefore contended that the impugned order and judgment and decree passed by the trial court deserves to be set aside.
6.1 The appellants further contend that during the proceedings before the trial court, they have filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC seeking impleadment in the instant P & SC No.152/2014, which was rejected by the trial court and consequently, the appellants have no other option but to approach this Court by way of the present appeal.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents jointly submit that neither the time of death of Aravinda Putta @ Aravinda Kumar and Smt.Reena Putta nor Section 21 of the said Act of 1956 are relevant or material for the purpose of deciding the issue in controversy between the parties. In this context, it is submitted that even assuming that Smt.Reena Putta is presumed to have died subsequent to Aravinda Putta @ Aravinda Kumar, upon her 7 demise, the subject properties which were acquired by her from her husband would devolve upon his heirs as provided under Section 15(1)(b) and 15(2)(b) of the said Act of 1956 and not upon the appellants, who are the parents of deceased Smt.Reena Putta. It is therefore submitted that the appellants do not have any manner of right, title, interest or possession over the subject properties and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions and perused the material on record.
9. The only question that arises for consideration in the present appeal is, as to whether the appellants being the parents of the deceased Smt.Reena Putta have any right over the subject properties involved in P & SC 152/2014, upon the demise of Aravinda Putta @ Aravinda Kumar and their daughter Smt.Reena Putta and their minor children?
10. The material on record discloses that it is an undisputed fact that in the fatal road accident that 8 occurred on 23.06.2012, Aravinda Putta @ Aravinda Kumar, his wife Smt.Reena Putta and their minor children Nisha Putta and Nitish Putta expired simultaneously. Section 21 of the said Act of 1956 provides for a presumption that in the case of simultaneous deaths, unless the contrary is proved, the younger person(s) is presumed to have died subsequent to the death of the older person in the accident. The appellants place reliance upon this provision in order to contend that since Smt.Reena Putta is presumed to have died subsequent to the death of Aravinda Putta @ Aravinda Kumar, the subject properties devolved upon her and on her demise, her parents viz., the appellants herein succeeded to the subject properties. However, the said contention is opposed by the respondents, who contend that Smt.Reena Putta died earlier to Aravinda Putta @ Aravinda Kumar.
11. In my considered opinion, neither the presumption under Section 21 of the said Act of 1956 nor the issue / question as regards the time of death of 9 Aravinda Putta @ Aravinda Kumar and Smt.Reena Putta are relevant or germane to decide the issue in controversy involved in the present appeal with regard to entitlement of the subject properties. In this context, it is relevant to extract Section 15 of the said Act of 1956, which reads as under:-
15. General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus.-- (1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16,--
(a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband;
(b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband;
(c) thirdly, upon the mother and father;
(d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and
(e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1),--
(a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-
section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father; and 10
(b) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband.
12. A plain reading of Section 15(1)(b) r/w Section 15(2)(b) is sufficient to indicate that even assuming that Smt.Reena Putta died subsequent to Aravinda Putta @ Aravinda Kumar, since she acquired / inherited the subject properties from her husband and not from her parents viz., the appellants herein, the subject properties would devolve upon the heirs of her husband i.e., the heirs of Aravinda Putta @ Aravinda Kumar and not upon the heirs of Smt.Reena Putta. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that in the light of the undisputed fact that the subject properties originally belonged to Aravinda Putta @ Aravinda Kumar and in view of Section 15(1)(b) r/w Section 15(2)(b) of the said Act of 1956, the respondents would be entitled to the subject properties 11 absolutely to the exclusion of the appellants herein who are not entitled to any manner of right, title, interest or possession over the subject properties.
13. It is therefore clear that there is no merit in any of the contentions urged on behalf of the appellants and accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SBN/SRL