Bangalore District Court
Rajeshwari Irayya Hiremath vs Sudha Suresh Pujari on 13 January, 2025
KABC010127552015
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-64) AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 13th day of January, 2025
: PRESENT :
Sri. I. P. Naik
LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
OS No.4958/2025
C/W
O.S.No.8210/2015
PLAINTIFFS :- 1. Master. Sanketh B Hiremath,
S/o.Late. V. Basavaraj,
Aged about 15 years,
2. Kum. Sadhvi B. Hiremath,
D/o.Late. V. Basavaraj,
Aged about 11 years,
3. Smt.Sudha,
D/o.Srisuresh Poojar,
Aged about 37 years,
all are residing at:
No.106, 1st C Cross,
6th A Main, Romeo Layout,
Vijayanagar,
2 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
Bangalore-560 040.
(By Sri. NNR., Advocate)
-V/s-
DEFENDANTS : 1 State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Home Department,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore
2. The Director General & Inspector
General of Police,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore.
3. Smt. Bharathi,
W/o.Sri.Annaveeraiah,
Aged about 40 years,
Anganawadi Teacher,
Residing at Koruwar Village,
Chittapura Taluk,
Kalburgi District.
4. Smt. Rajeshwari E Hiremath,
Aged about 40 years,
Residing at Bannikatte Circle,
Gandhinqagar,
Rajeeva Gandhi Nagar,
Gadag.
(D1 & D2-by Sri.SBM,
D3-Exparte,
D4- SSK-Adv)
--------------
3 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
Date of institution of the suit 08.09.2015
Nature of the suit Declaration, division and
permanent Injunction
Date of commencement of
19.02.2022
recording of evidence
Date on which the judgment 13.01.2025
was pronounced
Years Months Days
Total Duration
09 08 05
**********
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff No.1 to 3 have filed this suit against the defendant No.1 to 4 for the relief of declaration of their status to deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath as children and wife and effect partition in suit schedule 'A' and Suit 'B' Schedule properties and direct the defendant No.1 & 2 to disburse off the service benefits to the plaintiffs as the successor of deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath and direct the defendant No.4 to handover 4 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 the item of 'A' schedule property and restrained the defendant No.4 or her agents from creating partition or alienation 'A' schedule property and also not to disburse the amount of 'B' schedule property by granting permanent injunction.
2. The description of suit properties; The plaintiffs have claiming rights over the following properties:-
1. LCD TV worth about Rs 1,00,000/- and valuable household articles which are in the matrimonial house worth about Rs 2,00,000/-.
2. One wagner Car bearing No KA-01/K-1221.
----------hereinafter above properties are referred as suit 'A' schedule properties.
1. Service benefits like pension Amount, DCRG, EGIAS, GPF, KGID and other pensioner benefits of the deceased Basavaraj V with the first and second defendants.
----------------hereinafter above properties are referred as 'B' Schedule properties.
5 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
3.The factual matrix of the plaintiff's case is as under;
The plaintiff No.2 is the son and Plaintiff No.2 is the daughter of the plaintiff No.3 Smt.Sudha and her husband Basavaraj V Hiremath. The marriage of the plaintiff No.3 was performed and solemnized with the Basavaraj V Hiremath on 28.01.1999, he was working as Second Division Assistant in the office of the defendant No.2. The plaintiff No.3 is working as teacher in Government Urdu Higher Primary School, Richmond Town, Bengaluru.
4. The marriage of the plaintiff No.3 and Basavaraj V Hiremath was dissolved by submitting mutual consent divorce petition for dissolution of their marriage before the learned II Additional District Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in 6 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 M.C.No.2385/2012. Accordingly, heir marriage was dissolved as per the order dated 4.10.2012. During their matrimonial life they have purchased the properties described in suit 'A' schedule property. Basavaraj V Hiremath died on 02.03.2015 due to long time ill ness. In his service records the Plaintiff No.3 is mentioned as nominee and legally wedded wife of the Basavaraj V Hiremath. The deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath is having ancestral immovable property i.e., land bearing No 134/1 admeasured 7 acre 37 guntas at Amaravathi Village, Hunugund Taluk. The plaintiff No.1 and 2 and defendant No.3 have got partitioned in the said property in O.S.No.34/2015 as per terms of compromise. The plaintiff No.3 has received funeral expenses from the defendant No.2 to perform the last rituals of deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath. The plaintiffs have moved the application before the defendant No.2. At that time, they have averred that 7 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 the defendant No.3 has also met the expenses, so they are eligible for the service benefits of the Basavaraj V Hiremath. After dissolution of the marriage, the plaintiff is residing vicinity to Police Quarters, Shanti Nagar, Bengaluru. The deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath had cultivated bad habits, i.e., consuming alcohol and due to that, he was suffering from severe jaundice, he was continuously hospitalized at Gadag and thereafter he died. The plaintiffs averred that the defendant No.4 is not related to deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath or she is not having any relationship with the deceased. In spite of that she having possession of the property mentioned in the suit A schedule property. The plaintiffs are alone legal successors of the deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath. The defendant No.4 is claiming to be wife of the deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath. Hence, plaintiff have filed this suit for aforesaid relief.
8 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
5. In pursuant to the Summons, the defendant No.1, 2 & 4 appeared through their respective counsel. In spite of service of summons, the defendant No.3 failed to appear before this court. Hence, he is placed exparte.
6. The defendant No.1 & 2 have filed their written statement. The defendant No.4 has filed her written statement separately.
7. The defendant No.1 & 2 have taken contention that after death of Basavaraj V Hiremath, the defendant No.4 has submitted representation thereafter, it was disclosed that Basavaraj V Hiremath had filed petition before the 2nd additional principle Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in M.C.No.2385/2015 for dissolution of her marriage with the plaintiff No.3.
9 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 After dissolution of their marriage, deceased got re- married defendant No.4 at Kudala Sangama on 18.02.2013. The deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath has not made any representation for change of name in the place of plaintiff No.3 after re-marriage with the defendant No.4. The defendant No.1 & 2 have disbursed Rs.5,000/- as funeral expenses. As per the KCSR (family pension) Rules 1964, divorcee wife or husband is not liable for family pension.
8. The plaintiff No.3, defendant No.3 & 4 have made request to release the monetary benefits, including appointment on ground of Compensatory due to Basavaraj V Hiremath dead in service. The defendant No.4 submitted death certificate showing that she is the wife of deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath. Rest of the pleadings of the defendant No.1 & 2
10 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 pleaded that the plaintiff has to be proved the averments made in the para No.4, 7 to 12 of plaint and prays for pass appropriate orders as it deems fit.
9. The defendant No.4 has filed separate written statement wherein she has not disputed regarding the plaintiff No.1 & 2 are children of deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath and dissolution of the marriage between the plaintiff No.3 and deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath as per the orders in passed by the learned 2nd Additional principal Family Court, Bengaluru in M.C.No.2385/2012 on 4.10.2012. The defendant No.4 not disputed regarding the Basavaraj V Hiremath died on 02.03.2015. The plaintiff No.3 got divorce from Basavaraj V Hiremath by mutual consent. Therefore, she is not entitled for relief claimed in this suit.
11 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
10. The defendant No.4 pleaded ignorance regarding existence of immovable property at Amruthavati Village, Hungund Taluk, Bagalkote District. Further, she pleaded ignorance regarding defendant No.3 filed suit in O.S.No.34/2015 and same was decreed on 08.04.2015. The defendant No.4 is not party to the said suit. Therefore, the decree in O.S.No.34/2015 is not binding on the defendant No.4.
11. The defendant No.4 pleaded that the plaintiff No.3 received funeral expenses from the defendant No.1 due to her name is mentioned in the service records (Service Register Book) of deceased. Therefore, she received the same. But the defendant No.4 and her relatives have borne entire funeral expenses of deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath. The plaintiff No.3 are very well aware that she is not the 12 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 wife of the deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath, she has obtained the mutual consent divorce from the deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath. The plaintiff No.3 has taken undue advantage of not deleting her name from the service records of the deceased.
12. The properties described in the suit 'A' schedule property are self acquired properties of the deceased. Therefore, the plaintiffs have no right over the suit 'A' schedule property. The defendant No.4 specifically denied that she is totally stranger to the deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath. As pleaded by the defendants, the defendant No.4 being a legally wedded wife of Basavaraj V Hiremath she has got right over the property described in the schedule 'A' property and schedule 'B' property of the plaint.
13 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
13. The defendant No.4 has taken the specific contention that her marriage was solemnized with the deceased on 18.02.2013 at Kudala Snagama, Hungund Taluk, Bagalkote District. After marriage, the defendant No.4 started residing with the deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath during his life time, at Police Quarter, Shanti Nagar Bengaluru. After marriage with the deceased, he was obtained life insurance policy bg.No.697977367 for a sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/-. In the said policy deceased specifically mentioned the name of the defendant No.4 as nominee and wife. After mutual consent divorce the plaintiff No.1 to 3 are residing separately. Thereafter plaintiff No.3 never resided with the deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath during his life time.
14 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
14. The Basavaraj V Hiremath died at Barale Mission Hospital, Betagere, Gadag on 02.03.2015. After the death of the deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath the plaintiff No.3 and defendant No.3 made hectic efforts to get the death benefits of the deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath and also tried to vacate the defendant No.3 by making false representation before the defendant No.2. On 16.03.2015 the defendant No.4 also submitted representation before the defendant No.2 claiming service benefits of deceased out of the pension, KGID, GPF etc., But the defendant No.2 issued endorsement on 27.05.2015 and directed to obtain succession certificate from the competent court of law. Hence, the defendant No.4 filed separate suit in O.S.No.8210/2015.
15 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
15. The defendant No.4 specifically pleaded that the plaintiff No.3 colluding with deputy Tahsildar, Bengaluru North, (Upper) Yelahanka Taluk, Cubbonpet Bengaluru and got legal heirship certificate, income and caste certificate by suppressing true materials. The plaintiff No.3 is a divorced lady. She is not at all a legal heir of the deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath. The defendant No.4 not disputed that the plaintiff No.1 & 2 are the legal heirs of the deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath. The defendant No.4 is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath. Therefore, she is entitled to receive the monetary benefits along with the plaintiff No.1 & 2. Therefore, the defendant No.4 taken contention that the plaintiffs have not approached this court with clean hands and suppressed the true material facts before this court. Hence prays to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff with costs.
16 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
16. On the basis of aforesaid rival pleadings, following issues were framed;
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that they are the legal heirs and successor of the deceased Basavaraj.V?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the sharers in the suit schedule property as it is claimed.?
3. Whether the plaintiffs further proves that they are entitled to received the service benefits of the deceased Basavaraj.V as his legal heirs.?
4. Whether, the plaintiffs prove that the defendants No.4 is a stranger to the deceased Basavaraj.V.?
17 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
5. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled to the custody of the schedule 'A' property from the defendant No.4.?
6. Whether, the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled to the relief of injunction as it is sought.?
7. Whether the defendant No.4 proves that she married Sri.Basavaraj.V after his first marriage was dissolved with the plaintiff No.3.?
8. What Order or Decree.?
18 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 KABC010223452015 IN THE COURT OF THE LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-64) AT BENGALURU Dated this the 13th day of January, 2025 : PRESENT :
Sri. I. P. Naik LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
O.S.No.8210/2015 PLAINTIFFS :- 1. Smt. Rajeshwarai Irayya Hiremath, W/o.Late Basavaraj V. Hiremath, Aged about 40 years, Presently resident of No.C/08, Shanthinagar, Barlin Street, Police Quarters, Bengaluru-560 027.
Permanent address at C/o. Sri.S.Hiremath (Ex- serviceman) "Matru Krupa' H.No.771, Rajivgandhi Nagar, Gaddaga-582101.
(By Sri. SSK., Advocate)
19 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 V/s DEFENDANTS : 1. Smt.Sudha Suresh Pujari, D/o.Suresh Pujari, Aged about 37 years, residents of Narayana Building, No.205, 3rd Main, 3rd Cross, Nanjappa Layout, Bengaluru-560 030.
Working Address:
Government Urdu Higher Primary School, Near Jonson Market, Shanthinagar, Bengaluru-560 027.
2. Master Sanketh B Hiremath, S/o.Late. V.Basavaraj, Aged about 15 years,
3. Kum.Sadhvi, B. Hiremath, D/o.Late V. Basavaraj, Aged about 11 years Since the defendants No.2 and 3 are minors represented by their natural guardian-mother/next friend, the defendant No.1 Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are residents of
20 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 Narayana building No.205, 3rd Main, 3rd Cross, Nanjappa Layout, Audugodi, Bengaluru-560 030.
4. Smt. Bharathi, W/o.Annaveerayya, Aged about 42 years, Resident of Koravara Chittapur Taluq, Kalaburgi District.
5. The State of Karnataka, represented by its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-560 001.
6. The Director General & Inspector General of Police, Nrupathunga Road, Bangalore-560 001.
7. The Deputy Tahsildar, Bengaluru North(Upper) Yelahanka Taluq, Cubbonpet, Bengaluru-560 034.
********** Date of institution of the suit 26.09.2015 Nature of the suit Declaration, division and permanent Injunction 21 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 Date of commencement of 19.02.2022 recording of evidence Date on which the judgment 13.01.2025 was pronounced Years Months Days Total Duration 09 07 17 ****** JUDGMENT The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant No.1 to 7 for relief of declaration of her status with the deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath along with the defendant No.2 and 4 as class-I heir, further to declare that the legal heirship issued by the defendant No.7 is illegal and plaintiff is entitled to receive the service benefits of deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath and issue permanent injunction against the defendant No.6 from the disbursing the service benefits and monetary benefits to defendant No.1 to defendant No.4 or unpaid claiming these orders and 22 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 also issue mandatory injunction against the defendant No.6 to provide job on compensatory grounds and also to direct to released the pensionary benefits in favour of the plaintiffs.
17. The factual matrix of the plaintiff's case is as under;
The defendant No.2 & 3 are minors, they are represented by their Natural Guardian, mother i.e., defendant No.1. One Basavaraj V Hiramath was working as a Second Division Assistant in Police Department i.e., office of the defendant No.6. The marriage of the defendant No.1 was solemnized with the Basavaraj V Hiremath on 28.01.1999 at Tharalabalu Kendra, R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru. Out of their wedlock, defendant No.2 & 3 born to them. The defendant No.1 is working as teacher in Government Urdu Higher Primary School, Johnson Market, 23 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 Shanthinagar, Bengaluru. The defendant No.4 is the sister of the Basavaraj V Hiremath.
18. There was difference of opinion and misunderstanding in matrimonial life of the defendant No.1 and Basavaraj V Hiremath. Therefore, they have started residing separately since 10.04.2010. Further, they have decided to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent. Accordingly, both have filed mutual divorce petition before the 2nd additional Principal Family Court in M.C.No.2385/2012, as per the orders dated 04.10.2012 their marriage was dissolved with mutual consent. Thereafter, Basavaraj V Hiremath got married with the plaintiff on 18.0.2013 at Kudula Sangama, Hungund taluq, Bagalkote District. After marriage plaintiff and her husband Basavaraj V Hiramath started residing at police Quarters bearing.
24 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 House No.6/08, Shanthinagara, Berlyn street, Bengaluru. Due to some some bad habits Basavaraj V Hiramath was suffering from illness. Due to the said illness he died on 02.03.2015. The plaintiff, defendant No.2 & 3 are the Class-I legal heirs of deceased Basavaraj V Hiramath. The defendant No.3 obtained legal heirship certificate bearing No.RD0039275097880 by producing forged and concocted documents from of office of defendant No.7. The defendant No.3 is not at all an Class-I legal deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath. Therefore legal heir certificate issued by the defendant No.7 in favour of the defendant No.1 to 3 illegal and not binding or plaintiff. Based on that documents, the defendant No.3 and defendant No.4 are making hectic receive the service, death benefits of the Basavaraj V Hiremath by submitting representation before the defendant No.6 by suppressing the true materials facts.
25 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
19. Further, the defendant No.1 taking undue advantage of her name in the service records of deceased. Therefore, the plaintiff filed representation before the defendant No.6 and sought for release the death benefits and service benefits of the deceased. The deceased No.6 issued endorsement and directed to obtain succession certificate from the competent Court of Law. Hence, the plaintiff has filed this suit with aforesaid relief.
20. In pursuant to the Summons, the defendant No.1 to 3, 5 & 6 appeared through their respective counsel. The defendant No.4 and 7 failed to appear before this Court. Therefore, the defendant No.4 and 7 are placed exparte. The defendant No.1 filed her written statement on behalf of their minor children defendant No.2 & 3. The defendant No.6 filed written 26 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 statement separately, same is adopted by the defendant No.5 by filing memo.
21. The defendant No.1 has taken the contention in her written statement that the defendant No.2 and 3 are her children and they are in her custody. She specifically denied regarding the marriage of the plaintiff with the deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath on 18.02.2013. The defendant not disputed that she has got mutual consented divorce in M.C.No.2385/2012 as per the orders dated 4.10.2012. The defendant No.1 taken the contention that the Basavaraj V. Hiremath was suffering from sever illness, in the interest and welfare of their children the defendant No.1 got re- married with the Basavaraj V. Hiremath on 25.11.2012 at Shri. Mahalakshmi Temple, Mahalakshmi nagar, Gubbi, Tumkuru District. After that the defendant 27 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 No.1 to 3 were residing with the deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath. Due to ill ness Basavaraj V. Hiremath died on 02.03.2015. Further, the defendant No.1 specifically denied that the plaintiff is legally wedded wife of the Basavaraj V. Hiremath. If the plaintiff is real wife of the Basavaraj V. Hiremath her name will be cause entered in the service records of Basavaraj V. Hiremath. The plaintiff created Smart card, ID Card and LIC policy in order to have wrongful gain by getting service benefits. The defendant No.1 has alone taken care of the Basavaraj V. Hiremath at his evening days.
22. The defendant No.1 has taken the specific contention that the defendant No.4 is sister of deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath, the defendant No.4 has filed suit for partition in O.S.No.34/2015 before the learned Sr.Civil Judge, Hungud, Bagalkote District.
28 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 They have got share as per the order passed in Lok Adalath on 08.04.2015.
23. After the death of the Basavaraj V. Hiremath, the defendant No.1 and her relatives performed the last rituals of the deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath. Further, the defendant No.1 has taken the funeral expenses from the defendant No.6. Service records of deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath discloses that the defendant No.1 is nominee and his wife. Therefore, it discloses that after re-marriage of defendant No.1 and 3 they are residing with deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath. After th death of they are the Class -I legal heirs of the Basavaraj V. Hiremath. The plaintiff is nowhere concerned to the Basavaraj V. Hiremath, she is total stranger to the family of these defendants and deceased.
29 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
24. The defendant No.1 has specifically denied that she has obtained succession certificate by submitted forged and concocted documents. The defendant No.1 already filed suit against the present plaintiff and others in O.S.No.4958/2015, this itself discloses that she is not related to the family of the deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath. The defendant No.1 to 3 are only legal heirs of the deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath. Therefore, prays for dismiss the suit of the plaintiff with costs.
25. The defendant No.5 has taken contention that after death of Basavaraj V Hiremath, the plaintiff has submitted representation thereafter, it was disclosed that Basavaraj V Hiremath had filed petition before the 2nd additional principle Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in M.C.No.2385/2015 for dissolution of her marriage with the defendant No.1. After dissolution of 30 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 their marriage plaintiff again married with the deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath at Kudala Sangama on 18.02.2013. The deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath has not made any representation for change of name in the place of defendant No.1 after marriage with the plaintiff. The defendant No.5 & 6 have disbursed Rs.5,000/- as funeral expenses. As per the KCSR (family pension) Rules 1964, divorcee wife or husband is not entitle to family pension of retied government servants.
26. The defendant No.1 defendant No.3 and defendant No.4 have made request to release the monetary benefits, including appointment on of ground Compensatory due to death of Basavaraj V Hiremath, who was in service. The plaintiff submitted death certificate showing that she is the wife of 31 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath. Rest of the pleadings of the plaintiff is denied and she has to be proved the averments made in the plaint. Further, prior to filing this suit, the plaintiff has not issued notice to defendant No.5 and 6 as contemplated U/Sec 80 of CPC. Hence, prays for pass appropriate orders as it deems fit.
27. Based on the rival pleadings the Issues are framed in O.S.No.8210/2015 on 26.08.2016 and on 22.11.2018. The issues framed on 22.11.2018 are considered for discussion and conclusion of this suit. Same read thus;
1. Whether, the plaintiff proves that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Basavaraj.V Hiremath?
2. Whether the plaintiffs proves that she is Class-1 heir of the deceased Basavaraj V. 32 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 Hiremath along with the defendant No.2 & 3?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the legal heirship certificate dated 05.05.2015, issued by the defendant No.7 in favour of the defendant No.1 to 3 is illegal?
4. Whether, the plaintiffs proves that she is entitled to receive all the service benefits of the deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath?
5. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is entitled to the right of Permanent and Mandatory injunction as it is sought?
6. Whether, the defendant No.5 & 6 prove that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable for non compliance of sec.80 of C.P.C ?
7. What Order or Decree?
33 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 Additional Issues
1. Whether defendant No.1 proves that she got re-marriage with deceased Basavaraj.V.Hiremath on 25.11.2012 at Sri.Mahalakshmi Temple, Mahalakshmi Nagarak at Gubbi as pleaded in para No.5 of written statement of defendant No.1?
28. Hereinafter, the rank of parties taken into consideration and rank for better appreciation of matter in controversy. The defendant No.1 to 3 in O.S.No.8210/2015 referred as plaintiff No.1 to 3. The plaintiff in O.S.No.8210/2015 referred as defendant No.4. The defendant No.4 in O.S.No.8210/2015 referred as defendant No.3, The defendant No.5 and 6 in O.S.No.8210/2015 are referred as defendant No.1 and 2. The rank of defendant No.7 in O.S.No.8210/2015 remains as it is.
34 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
29. In order to discharge the burden lies on the plaintiffs, they have examined three witnesses including plaintiff No.3 examined as PW.1 to 3 and 24 documents are got marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.24. On other hand, six witnesses examined as DW.1 to DW.6 on behalf of defendant No.4. In support of her oral evidence he has produced 38 documents as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.38. Other defendants have not adduced oral and no documents produced on their behalf.
30. Heard the arguments on both side.
31. On considering pleadings, oral, documentary evidence and hearing of parties my answer to issues settled in both suit is as under;
ISSUES IN O.S.No.4958/2015 ISSUE No.1 : In the partly affirmative. ISSUE No.2 : In the partly affirmative.
35 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 ISSUE No.3 : In the partly affirmative. ISSUE No.4 : In the negative.
ISSUE No.5 : In the negative.
ISSUE No.6 : In the partly affirmative. ISSUE No.7.: In the affirmative. ISSUE No.8. : As per final order.
ISSUES IN O.S.No. 8210/2015 ISSUE No.1 : In the affirmative.
ISSUE No.2 : In the affirmative.
ISSUE No.3 : In the affirmative.
ISSUE No.4 : In the partly affirmative. ISSUE No.5 : In the partly affirmative. ISSUE No.6 : In the negative.
ADDLN. ISSUE No.1: In the negative. ISSUE No.7: As per final order.
-------------for following REASONS
32. On considering contention of rival parties following facts between them are admitted and undisputed;
36 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 Admitted facts of both parties;
32.1. The marriage of plaintiff No.3 performed and solemnized with deceased Basavaraj V, Hiremath on 28.01.1999 at Taralabalu Kendra, R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru.
32.2. The plaintiff No.1 and 2 born out of wed lock and matrimonial of life of the plaintiff No.3 and deceased Basavaraj V.Hiremath.
32.3. The plaintiff No.3 and deceased Basavaraj V.Hiremath got mutual consent decree/Ex.D.8 for dissolution of their marriage as per order/Ex.D.7 passed by learned II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in M.C.No.2385/2012 on presentation of memorandum of settlement/Ex.D.9.
32.4 Basavaraj V.Hiremath dead on 02.03.2015 at Basel Mission (CSI) Hospital, Gadag.
37 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
33. Undisputed facts of both parties; 33.1. One Smt Deepa who was sister of deceased Basavaraj V.Hiremath,came Bengaluru and she dead in police quarters situated at Shanti Nagar Bengaluru, wherein her brother Basavaraj V, Hiremath was resides.
33.2 Said Smt Deepa was unmarried when deceased Basavaraj V.Hiremath was joined service. In his service records book he was nominated his wife Smt Sudha (it mentioned before divorce) and unmarried sister Deepa.
33.3 The defendant No.3 filed suit for partition in immovable properties described in para No.4 of plaint presented on 08.04.2015 in O.S.No. 34/2015 before learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hungund, Bagalakote District.
33.4. The defendant No.3 entered into compromise with plaintiff No.1 and 2 in O.S.No.34/2015 and got settled before Lok Adalath held on 08.04.2015.
38 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 Arguments of the plaintiffs.
34. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that there is no dispute that the plaintiff No.1 & 2 are children of the plaintiff No.3 and the deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath. This fact is not admitted by the defendants including the defendant No.4. The defendant No.4 is totally stranger to the plaintiffs' family. The plaintiff No.3 and the deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath got married on 29.01.1999 at Taralabalu Kendra, R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru. They have led happy matrimonial life for a period of one decade. The deceased was drunkard, for this reason, difference of opinion arose between them. Hence, they have decided to dissolve their marriage by filing mutual consent divorce. Accordingly, they have got mutual consent decree for divorce in M.C.No.2382/2012 dated 4.10.2012, to dissolved their marriage. The learned 39 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 counsel for the plaintiffs heavily and strongly relied that in re-marriage parents of the interest of minor children the plaintiff No.1 & 2 i.e., plaintiff No.3 and the deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath got remarried on 25.11.2012 at Sri.Mahalakshmi Temple, Mahalakshmi, Tumkur District. The name of the plaintiff No.3 continued as wife in his service records of the deceased Accordingly, she has received the funeral expenses from the defendant No.2. After that, the defendant No.3 being the sister of the deceased, she filed suit for partition and separate possession in land bearing No.134/1 admeasuring 7 acres 37 guntas land situated at Amaravathi, Hungud Taluk, Belagavi district in O.S.No.34/2015 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hungiind, Bagalakote District. They have got compromise decree in the said suit. This fact is not seriously disputed by the defendant No.4 as legal heirs of the deceased, the plaintiff have got 40 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 possession of the item No.2 of the property described in the schedule 'A' property.
35. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs urged that the defendant NO.4 is totally stranger to the plaintiffs and deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath's family. She has created Ex.D.3 and Ex.D.6 documents by herself and exposed as legally wedded wife of the deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath. If she is really a legally wedded wife of the deceased her name will be automatically mentioned in the service records. This itself clearly shows that the plaintiff No.3 is not the legal heir of the deceased. If after divorce plaintiff No.3 and deceased residing in the separate house near Police Quarters of the deceased. Further, the defendant No.4 created LIC Policy bond and claiming her rights over the property described in schedule B 41 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 property. The defendant No.3 is nowhere concerned to the plaintiff's family. She has no right over the claim of the plaintiff.
36. The learned counsel for the plaintiff urged that in order to establish the marriage of the defendant No.3 and deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath she has examined her relatives. But they are not aware about when and what time marriage was performed. Even though they have not produced the wedding invitation card, simply they have created photo and got marked them at Ex.D.32 to Ex.D.36. Therefore, the defendants failed to prove that she is legally wedded wife of the deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath. Therefore, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs prays for decree the suit with costs of plaintiffs (O.S.No.4858/2015) and 42 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 dismissed the suit of defendant No.4 with cost (O.S.No.8210/2015).
Argument of defendant No.4
37. As against this, the learned counsel for the defendant No.4 urged that at undisputed time, the plaintiff No.3 herself stated that she is divorced wife of the deceased. This fact reveals from her plaint in presented in O.S.No.4958/2015. Same is also reflected in the plaint presented O.S.No.43/2015 and compromise decree of O.S.No.34/2015. The address furnished by the plaintiff No.3 itself discloses that after divorce, herself along with her children never resided with the deceased. In order to deprive the legal rights of the defendant No.4 she has started to misguiding the authorities including the Police Department and revenue Department. She has suppressed the true material facts and created death certificate and got 43 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 legal heirship certificate from the defendant No.4 by representing false facts before the Revenue authority. Even though before this court she has not produced complete documents in order to misguided the court. This fact is admitted by the plaintiff No.3 in her cross- examination. At undisputed point of time, the deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath obtained LIC policy in his name and also he has cited the name of the defendant No.4 as his spouse and wife and she is mentioned as nominee. During the life time of the deceased his sister by name Smt. Deepa died at the Police quarters, at that time, he has lodged complaint as per Ex.D.21 before the Ashok Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru, wherein he is specifically mentioned that in police quarter along with him his wife Rajeshwari/defendant No.4 and his sister Deepa is residing in the said house.
44 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
38. Further, at undisputed point of time, 3 documents were obtained by the deceased from the competent authority i.e., I.D. Card got marked at Ex.d.3 and D.6, LIC policy. The marriage certificate issued by the Koodalasangama Development Party, Koodalasangakam as per Ex.D.5. After the death of the Basavaraj V. Hiremath, the defendant No.4 the deceased applied for extension of time to reside in the police quarter before the defendant No.2. The defendant No.2 allowed the said application and permitted to reside her fur further reasonable time. This fact reveals from Ex.D.26.
39. Another important document i.e., letter of undertaking/Ex.D.31 submitted by the Basavaraj V. Hiremath before the Corporation Bank on 04.08.2014, wherein he specifically mentioned that the 45 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 Rajeshwari/defendant No.4 is his wife, Sanketh and Sadhwi/plaintiff No.1 and 2 are his son and daughter/children. Considering all these aspects it clearly discloses that the marriage of the defendant No.4 solemnized with the deceased on 18.02.2013 at Koodalasangama. This version is corroborated from the oral evidence of DW.4 to DW.6.
40. The learned counsel for the defendant No.4 has drawn the attention of this court on Ex.D.22 to Ex.D.25. The defendant No.3/Bharati was filed suit for partition in O.S.No.34/2015 on the file of the Sr.Civil Judge and JMFC, Hungund, Bagalakote District, on 08.2.2015 without waiting for service of suit summons, the plaintiff No.3 was appeared in said suit on behalf of the plaintiff No.2 & 3 voluntarily on 08.04.2015, their ranking in the said suit is defendant No.1 to 3.
46 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 On the same day they have entered into compromise and presented compromise petition Ex.P.23 and got conclusive compromise decree as per Ex.P.25. This itself discloses the intention of Plaintiff No.3 to deprive the legal rights of the defendant No.4.
41. Another interesting point urged by the learned counsel for the defendant No.4 is that the death certificate Ex.D.10 and another unmarked death certificate of Basavaraj V. Hiremath in Ex.D.10. The name of the defendant No.4 and plaintiff No.3 is mentioned as wife of the deceased in death certificate. But the name of the plaintiff No.3 is deleted from the death certificate. But she has misused the earlier death certificate and obtained the legal survivor certificate Ex.D.16. Therefore, these documents i.e., illegal and not binding on her. After having knowledge 47 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 of the said fact defendant No.4 submitted requisition to the get back the legal heir certificate issued in favour of the defendants by submitting the requisition Ex.D.17, dated 20.06.2015.
42. The learned counsel for the defendant No.4 submitted that the defendant No.4 not at all denied the legal status of the plaintiff No.1 & 2 that they are the children of deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath. Therefore, the defendant No.4, plaintiff No.1 & 2 are the Class-I leal heirs of the Basavaraj V. Hiremath. Therefore, they are entitled for the death benefits of the Basavaraj V. Hiremath. The plaintiff has not approached this court with clean hands. Therefore, prays for decree the suit of defendant No.4 with cost (O.S.No8210/2015) and dismiss the suit of the plaintiffs with cost (O.S.No.4958/2015). The learned 48 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 counsel for defendant No.4 has relied on following Judgment in support of his submission.
AIR 1994 SC 853 S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu VS Jaganath W.P.No 103766/2018 Dtd 31.03.2022 Smt Renuka Vs Sri Ramanand ISSUE NO 1, 4 AND 7 in O.S.No 4958/2015 AND ISSUE No. 1, 2 AND ADL NO.1 in O.S.No. 8210/2015.
43. The plaintiffs have taken contention that, defendant No.4 is stranger of family of deceased Basavaraj V.Hiremath. As against this, the defendant No.4 taken contention that, after getting mutual consent decree for dissolution of marriage with Basavaraj V.Hiremath, the plaintiff No.3 never re- married with him. After decree for divorce of marriage performed between them, Said Basavaraj V.Hiremath 49 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 married with defendant No.4. On considering these rival contention, these issues inter link with each other and in order to avoid repeation of facts and reasons, these issues taken together for common discussion.
44. The plaintiffs have examined 3 witnesses including Plaintiff No.3. The plaintiff No.3 has stepped into the witness box and filed affidavit in lieu of examination in chief wherein she has reiterated the plaint averments, wherein already averments made in the plaint is narrated as above. In support of her oral evidence she has produced in total 28 documents. Out of that, already photo, CD and letter corresponding with the defendant No.2, RTC are got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8. Later on she has produced the order sheet, marriage invitation card receipt, and other documents which are got marked as Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.23. In support 50 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 of evidence of PW.1 the plaintiff have examined Vasudev Acharya as PW.1 and one Smt. Savitha Poojari who is none other than sister of Plaintiff No.3 examined as PW.3.
45. PW.2 is residing at vicinity of residential house of plaintiff No.3, He is working in Education Department. His evidence is related to the remarriage of the plaintiff No.3 with the deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath. In the course of cross-examination the learned counsel for the defendant put suggestions that the plaintiff No.3 has not re-married with the deceased and never resided with him after the divorced. This suggestions is denied.
46. In the course of cross-examination PW.3 deposed that he is not aware about the mutual 51 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 consent divorce decree filed for dissolution of the marriage of plaintiff No.3 and the deceased. Further, he his not aware that the defendant No.4 got married with the deceased after divorcing the plaintiff No.3 on 18.02.2013. Further, she admitted that one Deepa sister of the deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath died in the police quarters. Further, she has pleaded ignorance about the defendant Rajeshwari is residing with the deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath and deceased sister Deepa.
47. In the course of cross-examination PW.1 stated that she is filed this suit on behalf of her minor children Plaintiff No.1 &2. She was unaware about defendant No.4 at the time of death of her husband. Prior to that, she was not aware about the defendant No.4 Further she stated regarding Deepa died in the 52 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 year 2004 (by mistake year is mentioned as 2004 instead of 2014). Further she admitted that her husband is having immovable property at Amaravathi Village, Hungund Taluk. The learned counsel for the defendant No.4 denied that the defendant No.4 is the not own sister of the deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath. This suggestions is denied. Further she admitted regarding mutual decree of divorce with the deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath. The learned counsel for the defendant No.4 confronted one document, she has admitted her signature. The said document is marked at Ex.D.1. The said document is issued by one Advocate Shri.M.R.Krishna to deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath. He issued circular and directed to appear before the family court for obtaining mutual consent decree of divorce from Family Court, Bengaluru.
53 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
48. The learned counsel for the defendant No.4 urged regarding no pleading of re-marriage with the deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath. In O.S.No.4958/2015 she pleaded ignorance to the said suggestions. Further, she voluntarily stated that she has informed to her counsel.
49. The learned counsel for the defendant No.4 suggested that after marriage of the defendant No.4 with the deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath, she is living with him in the police quarters of Shanthi Nagar, Bengaluru, This suggestions is denied. The learned counsel for the defendant No.4 suggested that after obtaining compromise decree in O.S.No.34/2015 in order to deprive and defraud the rights of the defendant No.4. This suggestions is denied. Further, she is admitted that one Deepa sister of the deceased 54 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 Basavaraj V. Hiremath died on 03.02.2025. Further, she stated that Deepa died in the police quarter guided by the deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath.. The learned counsel for the defendant No.4 suggested that at that time, the defendant No.4 was residing with the deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath. In the police quarters. This suggestion is denied.
50. In order to dis-prove the contention taken by the plaintiff No.3 and to substantiate the marriage of the defendant No.4 with the deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath, the defendant No.4 herself examined as DW.1. She has stepped into the witness box wherein she has reiterated the averments made in the written statement. In support of her oral evidence, she has produced 31 documents. In order to prove her marriage with the Basavaraj V. Hiremath she has examined one Jagadish, as DW.2, Hiremath N.D as 55 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 DW.6, one Venkatesh Chitraguntala examined as DW.5. These witnesses including the defendant NO.4 (DW.1) categorically deposed that on 18.02.2013, defendant No.4 married with the deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath after divorce with the plaintiff No.3 at koodalasangama Hungund Taluk, Belagavi. At the time of the said marriage, they were present.
51. In his cross-examination DW.5 deposed that he is having business at Gadag and defendant No.1 is not belonged to his community. He has signed as witness to the said marriage. Further, he pleaded ignorance regarding how many days prior he has to apply for marriage at Koodalasangama. At the time of marriage, father of the DW.1, her sister and two brothers were also present therein.
56 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
52. Further he pleaded ignorance regarding who had performed the marriage rituals of defendant No.4 and Basavaraj V. Hiremath. Said Basavaraj V. Hiremath was very well known to him since 10 years. He pleaded ignorance regarding DW.1 was residing at Mumbai. But he is not aware about he residing at Mumbai as he only once visited him at Bengaluru. Marriage photos are marked at Ex.D.32 to Ex.D.36. He pleaded ignorance regarding Basavaraj V. Hiremath never resided in the address mentioned in Ex.D.5.
53. In the course of cross-examination DW.6 stated that one Venkatesh clicked the photos Ex.D.32 to Ex.D.36. He is not aware about who were invited to the marriage of the defendant No.4 with the Basavaraj V. Hiremath. The learned counsel for the defendant suggested that Ex.D.32 to Ex.D.36 are not clicked.
57 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 Further he does not remember about his involvement in the marriage talks and it was taken placed during January 2013. The marriage was performed in the presence of elders and well wishers.
54. The defendant No.1 has examined two other witness one is Shabbir Hussain, who is examined as DW3 and DW4 Mahadevaiah. They have deposed that they are working in the Police Department and residing in the Police Quarter Shanthi nagar Bengaluru. This aspects shows that during 2012 deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath and the defendant No.1 residing in the police quarter as per Ex.D.4 at Police quarters, Shanthi nagar, Bengaluru. Further, they were aware about DW.4 and deceased residing together in the police quarters.
58 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
55. In the course of cross-examination, DW.3 deposed that for last 35 years, he is residing in the police quarters (as on date of examination of PW.3 he was 45 years old). There is no dispute between the defendant No.4 and deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath til his last breath. Therefore, the question put to the DW.1 that the deceased and the defendant No.4 had not married and they were living together without marriage, this suggestion is denied. 56. DW.5 deposed that, the plaintiff No.1 and 2 were going to the school situated near the police quarters and it is situated near the police quarter of Shanthi Nagar, Bengaluru. He has pleaded ignorance to his point. Further during the course of cross- examination he stated that he has seen the canteen card which is marked as Ex.P.6. During the cross-
59 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 examination of DW.1 she has not stated about the written statement filed by the plaintiff No.3 in O.S.No.8210/2015 she has averred that the Plaintiff No.3 received Rs.5,000/- as funeral expenses. Further she stated that the properties described in the 'A' schedule property are purchased by the deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath. Further the learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that LIC police/Ex.D.28 is forged and created one. This suggestion is denied. Further the learned counsel for the plaintiff suggested that she has created the forged and created documents for the purpose of this case. This suggestion is also denied. There is no letter corresponding with plaintiff No.3 from office of the defendant No.2. She has specifically denied that the you have filed O.S.No.8210/2015 against the O.S.No.4958/2015 in order to harass her. The defendant produced the canteen card as per Ex.D.6 to show that she is the wife 60 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 of the Basavaraj V. Hiremath and also LIC policy. But these are all created one. This suggestion is specifically denied.
57. Arguments canvassed by the both rival paries, I have examined the oral and documentary evidence placed by the both the parties. In the absence of the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendant, in this case, the admitted fact are already disputed. Therefore, these fact need not required for discussion. The only important aspect i.e., whether the Basavaraj V. Hiremath married with the defendant No.4 after obtaining mutual consent divorce decree for dissolution of marriage from the plaintiff No.3 or whether the plaintiff No.3 got remarried with the Basavaraj V. Hiremath, immediately after obtaining divorce. These two factors are very important point 61 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 involved in this case. Therefore, I have meticulously perused the documentary evidence adduced by the defendant No.4. There is no dispute that Basavaraj V. Hiremath died on 03.02.2015. Both the parties produced the death certificate. The plaintiff have got marked at Ex.P.24 and defendant No.4 got marked at Ex.D.10. After the death of Basavaraj V. Hiremath. The death is registered in the Birth and Death register for death certificate, wherein he has specifically mentioned that the Plaintiff No.3 and Defendant No.4 are mentioned as wives of Basavaraj V. Hiremath. The name of the plaintiff No.3 is deleted on 18.02.2015. Another important documents produced by the defendant it clearly discloses that the name of the plaintiff No.3 is deleted from the death certificate of the Basavaraj V. Hiremath. At the time of obtaining the death certificate of Basavaraj V. Hiremath.
62 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
58. The plaintiff has presented application Ex.D.17. She has obtained the survival certificate as per Ex.P.16. Prior to fling of the above suit, the defendant No.3 filed suit for partition in O.S.No.34/2015 regarding property situated at Amaravathi Village, Hungund Taluk, as Ex.D.22. The plaintiff No. and the defendant No.3 have taken contention that the defendant No.4 clearly discloses that Ex.D.3 presented by the plaintiff as per Ex.P.23 on 08.04.2015. The order sheet of the said suit discloses that the said suit bearing No.34/2015 is filed on 08.04.2015. Therefore, it clearly discloses that the defendant No.4 and plaintiff No.1 to 3 were present before that Court. On the same day they have filed compromise petition. The order was passed and put her signature on the compromise petition.
63 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
59. One thing is very clear from this that it clearly discloses that the plaintiff No.3 is the divorced wife of Basavaraj V. Hiremath. This fact is noticed and reflected from the order sheet of 5.04.2015. I have carefully perused the order sheet in O.S.No.34/2015 which clearly discloses that the Plaintiff No.3 is the divorced wife of the deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath.. Accordingly, she has not obtained any share in the landed property bearing Sy.No.134/1 of Amaravathi Village, Hungund Taluk. The husband of the plaintiff No.3 died on 03.02.2015. The plaintiff No.1 and 2 and defendant No.3 availed share in the suit on 08.04.2015, within 40 days from the date of death of Basavaraj V.Hiremath, the plaintiff No.3 and defendant No.3 has obtained the compromise decree. The reasons best known to them only. Therefore, it is held that compromise decreed/Ex.D.25 is collusive decree and 64 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 obtained without knowledge of defendant No.4. Accordingly it is specifically held that said decree is not binding of defendant No.4. After the death of Basavaraj V. Hiremath, the above defendant No.4 issued notice to the defendant No.1 and directed to vacate the quarters C-9 Berlyn Quarters, within 01.07.2015. The defendant No.4 applied for extension of time and to resided in the police quarters even after the death of Basavaraj V. Hiremath. Thereafter, the plaintiff No.3 defendant No.3 and 4 applied for release of the total pension amount in their favour. The learned counsel for the defendant No.4 has rightly drawn the attention of the court on Ex.P.12 and Ex.D.19. Both the documents are one and the same. Ex.D.12 is the endorsement issued from the office of the defendant NO.2 dated 27.05.2015.
65 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
60. The plaintiff No.3 has filed O.S.No.4958/2015 on 08.06.2015. The learned counsel for the defendants has rightly elicited from the mouth of PW1 and PW3 that prior to death of the Basavaraj V. Hiremath, she is filed suit in O.S.No.4958/2024. This fact is denied specifically. The defendant No.3 presented plaint in O.S.No.34/2015 before learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hungund, Taluk, Begalakote District, wherein it is clearly deposed and clearly discloses that the plaintiff No.3 has got mutual consent divorce decree for dissolution of the marriage between her and Basavaraj V. Hiremath, and soon after obtaining the said divorce, she has re-married with the said Basavaraj V. Hiremath at Shri Mahalakshmi Temple, Mahalakshminougar, Tumkur District. But she has produced documents at Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.10, they are the invitation cards issued from the Mahalakshmi 66 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 temple. The said trust has invited the plaintiff No.3 and the deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath to the temple for the 11th anniversary of the Mahalakshmi temple celebrated on 11.05.2014. These documents discloses that Basavaraj V. Hiremath and Smt.Sudha have paid an amount to the trust as per Ex.P.11 to Ex.P.14.
61. In cross examination of PW.1, the learned counsel for defendant No.4 rightly elicited that about no pleading respect of her re-marriage with deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath in plaint presented in O.S.No4958/2015. The PW.1 stated that, she has not averred about said pleading, further she voluntarily deposed that informed about re-marriage to her counsel. The plaintiffs have filed suit bearing No 4958/2015 prior to filing suit bearing O.S.No 8210/2015. In plaint the plaintiff No.3 not at pleaded about her re-marriage. The plaint presented by plaintiff 67 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 is contend verification clause and verification affidavit. Therefore, in cross examination PW.1 is not deposing truth before Court. Prior filing suit by defendant No.4, the plaintiff No.3 is party to suit bearing No 34/2015 and O.S.No 4958/2015, she has did not disclose and pleaded regarding her re-marriage.
62. The plaintiff No.3 has pleaded about re- marriage with deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath after filing suit bearing O.S.No 8210/2015 in first time at her written statement. After the defendant No.4 claiming she is wife of deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath. Therefore, her evidence in respect of re-marriage is not believable one. The plaintiff No.3 has not examined any witness who are witnesses to her re-marriage and not examined author of document/Ex.P.21. Therefore, the plaintiff No.3 failed to prove her re-marriage with deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath.
68 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
63. The plaintiff No.3 has claiming her re- marriage only after suit filed by the defendant No.4 i.e., O.S.No 8210/2015. Prior that, the plaintiff No.3 has got times opportunity and occasion to take plea of re- marriage with deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath firlty, in O.S.No 34/2015 filed before learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hungund and Secondly in O.S.No. 4958/2015. Further, she has got claim that she bearing wife/class-I heir of deceased Basavaraj V.Hiremath. Further, if she really re-married with him, she definitely claim her share in land bearing Sy. No.134/1 of Amaravathi village. But the plaintiff No.3 did claimed these rights and pleas in her earlier pleadings. Therefore, claim made in written statement by plaintiff No.3 filed in O.S.No 8210/2015 is hit by principles of constructive Res-Judicata and also hit by principles of Rule of estoppeal. Therefore, it is held 69 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 that, the plaintiff No.3 (defendant No.3 in O.S.No 8210/2015) has utterly fails to her re-marriage with deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath on 25.11.2013 at Mahalaksami Temple, Gubbi, Tumkur District.
64.1 Further, the defendant No.4 has strongly relied on three documents, which came into exist at undisputed time, firstly LIC policy/Ex.D..28. During life of deceased Basavaraj V.Hiremath was obtained the LIC policy on 26.12.2013, wherein, deceased specifically mentioned that defendant No.4 is his wife and nominee.
64.2 Secondly, another important Bank document i.e., Letter of Underking/Ex.D.31. Wherein, also deceased has mentioned name of his family member first his wife Rajeshwari/defendant No.4, his son Sanketh/plaintiff No.1 and daughter 70 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 Sadhwi/plaintiff No.2. Said Letter of Undertaking presented on 04.08.2014 before Corporation Bank, N.T.Road branch Bengaluru (Now Corporation Bank amalgamated with Union Bank of India in the year 2021). Therefore, Ex.D.31 document is issued by Union Bank of India on 04.03.2022.
64.3. Thirdly, the registration case under UDR No 24/2014 of Ashok Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru based on first information statement lodged by Basavaraj V.Hiremath on 15.08.2014. In the course of cross-examination of PW.1 and her brother PW.3, both deposed that, both are averred about Smt Deepa was sister of Basavaraj V Hiremath. She dead in police quarters and in this regard, Basavaraj V Hiremath was lodged first information statement/Ex.D.21. Furher, they have pleaded their ignorance recitals of Ex.D.21, 71 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 because two sentence are against to the interest of plaintiff No.3/PW.1.
65. On considering undisputed fact of death of Smt Deepa and Ex.D. 28 and Ex.D.31. I have carefully perused the recitals of letter of undertaking, LIC police and first information statement (Ex.D.28, Ex.D.31 and Ex.D.21). In these documents, deceased Basavaraj V.Hiremath specifically mentioned Rajeshwari is his wife. In Ex.D.21 deceased narrated facts of death of Smt Deepa and why she was visited to Bengaluru on 08.08.2014. I have perused the recitals of Ex.D.21. Wherein, deceased was stated that Smt Deepa was wife of Eranna. On 08.08.2014 she was came to Bengaluru from Gulburge District on occasion of Varanalaxmi festival and Rakhi festival. She ought to be returned on her matrimonial home on 18.08.2014, unfortunately 72 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 on 15.08.2014 at 05;30am she was suffering for chest pain. At that time his wife Smt Rajeshwari was treated her by applying cream thereon. Thereafter, Smt Deepa was shifted to Malya Hospital at 07;00am, a Doctor verified and confirmed that Deepa was dead due to heart attack.
66. On considering recitals of Ex.D.21, Ex.D.28 and Ex.D.31, it clearly disclosed that defendant No.4 is wife deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath. Further, after death of Basavaraj V Hiremath, the office of defendant No.2 have official letter corresponding with defendant No.4 i.e., police notice/Ex.D.11 Dtd 19.06.2015, endorsement/Ex.D.19 Dtd 27.05.2015 regarding vacant of quarters quantified by deceased along with defendant No.4 and directed to plaintiff No.3 and defendant No.3 and 4, to produced succussion 73 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 certificate from competent court. In this document, address of defendant No.4 mentioned as under;
Smt Rajeshwari E Hiremath W/o late Basavaraj V Hiremath House No C/08 Shanthi Nagar police quarters Near Nanjappa Circle, Bengaluru. This address of defendant No.4 is corroborated from oral evidence of DW.3 and DW.4 who are residential of police quarters situated at Shanthi Nagar Bengaluru.
67. The plaintiff No.3 is tried to misguide this Court by producing partial part of Ex.D.19. So it is held that, the plaintiff No.3 has not approached to Court with clean hands. On considering ocular evidence of DW.1, DW.2, DW.5 and DW.6 as whole and photos Ex.D.32 to 36 which are supported with certificate. It is held that, the defendant No.4 is proved 74 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 that she is wife of deceased Basavaraj V.Hiremath, she is not stranger to him and she resided with him at H.No. C/08 Shanthi Nagar police quarters, near Nanjappa Circle, Bengaluru and her marriage was performed and solemnized with Basavaraj V Hiremath on 18.02.2013 at Kudalasangama Hungund tq Bagalakote District. Further, it is held that, the plaintiff No.3 fails to prove that she re-marred with Basabaraj V.Hiremath after getting divorce from him as taken contentions in para No.5 of her written statement filed in O.S.No 8210/2015. Therefore, the plaintiff No.3 being divorced lady, she is not having any interest in properties left by deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath as agreed in para 5 of memorandum of settlement/Ex.D.9 produced before learned II additional principal Judge, Family Court in M.C.No 2385/2012. The defendant No.4 is not disputing relationship of plaintiff No.1 and 2 with deceased as 75 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 his children. Accordingly, it is held that, the defendant No.4, plaintiff No.2 and 3 are class-I legal heir of deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath.
68. During cross-examination of PW.1, the learned counsel for defendant No.4 denied the relationship of defendant No.3 with deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath. In her pleading the defendant No.4 cleared pleaded that, the defendant No.3 is sister of deceased. Any admission made is pleading is putting great judicial admission in proceedings of the case. The plaint presented by defendant No.4 in O.S.No8210/2015, she pleaded that, SmtBharati/defendant No.3 and Smt Deepa are sisters of Basavaraj V.Hiremath. The defendant No.3 is sister of deceased. She is not class-I heir of deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath. At the bast she is class-II heir of deceased as per schedule of 76 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 Hindu Succession Act,1956. Accordingly issue No.1 in O.S.No. 4958/2015 answered in the partly affirmative, issue No.7 in O.S.No 4958/2015 and issue No.1 and 2 in O.S.No 8210/2015 are answered in the affirmative and issue No.4 in O.S.No 4958/2015 and additional issue No.1 in O.S.No.8210/2015 answered in the negative.
ISSUE No.6 in O.S.No 8210/2015.
69. The defendant No. 1 and 2 (in O.S.No 8210/2014 the rank of these defendants is defendant No.5 and 6) have pleaded that, the defendant No.1 (plaintiff in O.S.No 8210/2015 filed the suit without issuing statutory notice as contemplated under Sec 80 of CPC. Admitted, the defendant No.4 as well as the plaintiff No.3 have not got issued statutory notice to Government officials/servants. As per sec 80 of CPC it is mandatory one. At this stage, this Court relied on 77 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 endorsement/Ex.D.19 issued by the defendant No.2 on 27.05.2015. Wherein, the defendant No.2 directed to the plaintiff No.3, the defendant No 3 and 4, to obtain succession certificate from competent court of law. Afterwords plaintiffs have suit bearing O.S.No 4958/2015 on 08.06.2015 and the defendant No.4 has filed suit bearing O.S.No 8210/2015 on 26.09.2015. The defendant No.4 filed suit after lapse of 60 days after receiving endorsement/Ex.D.19. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, in both suit statutory notice is not required
70. Further, this Court perused the first day order sheet of both suit and check list. Wherein, directed to register the both suit. The defendant No.5 and 6 have not at all challenge said registration order. So itself disclosed, after considering facts of case, 78 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 officer is directed to register the suits. In supported of my view I have relied on Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka rendered in Irappa Basappa Kudhachi VS State of Karnatak (1996(2) KLJ 591). Therefore, it is held that both suit are maintainable under law. Accordingly, issue No 6 in O.S.No 8210/2015 answered in the negative. ISSUE No.3 in O.S.No 8210/2015.
71. The plaintiffs have obtained heirship certificate/Ex.P.3/Ex.D.16 from office of defendant No.7. The plaintiff No.3 is not at relationship with deceased Basavaraj V.Hiremath and she is divorced lady from him and not class-I legal heir of deceased. Inspite of that, within short time the plaintiff No.3 obtained succession certificate from defendant No.7. First of all, the plaintiff No.3 is not wife and class-I 79 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 legal heir of deceased Basavaraj V.Hiremath. She has obtained the succession certificate suppressing true material facts i.e., the plaintiff No.3 is not wife of deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath and she took divorced from him. Therefore, it is held that, succession certificate/Ex.P.3/Ex.D.16 is issued in favour of the plaintiff No.3 is illegal one. Accordingly, issued No.3 in O.S.No.8210/2015 is answered in the affirmative. ISSUE No.5 in O.S.No,4958/2015.
72. The plaintiffs have claiming possession and ownership of properties described in suit 'A' schedule of their plaint. In the course of arguments, the learned counsel for plaintiffs urged that while vacating H.No C/8 Berlie Street Shanthi Nagar Bengaluru, the plaintiffs have taken and retained the properties described in 'A' schedule of plaint. Therefore, relief (e) 80 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 is frustrated. Accordingly, issue No.5 in O.S.No 4958/2015 answered in the negative.
Issue No.2, 3 and 6 in O.S.No 4958/2015 and issue No.4 and 5 in O.S.No 8210/2015.
73. The plaintiff No.1 to 3 in O.S.No 4958/2015 are claiming that there are successors and legal heirs of deceased Basavaraj V.Hiremath. To effect division in schedule properties as per their share. Further, they have sought for declaration relief (in a negative form) that is to declare that defendant No.4 is not related to their family and restrained her from alienating the suit 'A' schedule properties. The defendant No.1 and 2 are directed disburse the death benefits of Basavaraj V. Hiremath to plaintiffs. At same they have claiming permanent injunction against defendant No.1 and 2 81 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 not to disburse suit 'B' schedule amount. The plaintiffs of this suit claimed total seven relief.
74. The plaintiff in O.S.No 8210/2015 claiming relief of declaration of her legal status with deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath and succession certificate issued in favour of defendant No.1 to 3 is illegal. Further, in this suit also, the plaintiff claiming wonderful relief i.e., The defendant 5 is directed disburse the death benefits of Basavaraj V. Hiremath to plaintiff by granting mandatory injunction. At same she claiming permanent injunction against defendant No.6 not to disburse service and monetary benefits of deceased Basavaraj V.Hiremath. Another important relied claimed by plaintiff of this suit is issue mandatory injunction against defendant No.6, to provide job to her on the ground of compassionate.
82 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
75. While assigning reasons and deciding the issue No 1, 4 and 7 in O.S.No 4958/2015 and issue No. 1, 2 and additional No.1 in O.S.No. 8210/2015. This Court held that, the plaintiff No.1 and 2 in O.S.No 4958/2015 (defendant No.1 and 2 in O.S.No 8210/2015) are children of deceased Basavaraj V.Hiremath, born out wed lock with plaintiff No.3 who is divorced wife of deceased. This facts is unequivocally admitted by defendant No.4 (plaintiff in O.S.No 8210/2015. The plaintiff No.1 and 2 being son and daughter of deceased, both are class-I heir of deceased as per schedule of Hindu Succession Act.
76. The plaintiff No.3 in O.S.No 4958/2015 (defendant No.1 is O.S.No 8210/2015 is utterly fails prove that, again she got remarry with him 83 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 immediately after mutual consent decree for dissolution of her marriage with deceased Basavaraj V.Hiremath. In cross-examination PW.1 unequivocally admitted that, she was obtained divorce from deceased. So she is not wife and/or not having any kind of relationship with properties left by deceased and/or with deceased. At this stage, this Court has relied on memorandum of settlement presented in MC.No2385/2012. For better appreciation condition No.I(2) and I(5) are reiterated;
I. The aforesaid petition was referred to mediation for resolving the dispute between the parties. In the course of mediation, they have resolved their dispute and have agreed to following terms and conditions:-
(1) XXX XXX XXX
(2) The relationship between the petitioner (deceased
Basavaraj V.Hiremath and respondent( plaintiff No.3) has not been conducive and hence the respondent due to differences between her and the petitioner has left the petitioner's company and have been living separately since 10.04.2011 and despite several attempts of settlement and reconciliation between the parties and their elders, the matter could not be 84 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 settled and hence, both parties namely petitioner and the respondent have agreed to end their relationship by decree of divorce.
(3) XXX XXX XXX
(4) XXX XXX XXX
(5) The petitioner and respondent agreed that they shall
not have any claims whatsoever against each other in respect of movable immovable property or maintenance/alimony claims.
77. This Court held that, the defendant No.4 proved that, Basavaraj V.Hiremath was married with her after obtaining mutual consent decree for dissolution of his marriage with plaintiff No.3. Further, it is held that, she was resided with deceased during his life time and thereafter a short time at C/08 Shanthi Nagar police quarters, Near Nanjappa Circle, Bengaluru. The defendant No.4 has proved she is wife of deceased. Therefore, she is also class-I heir of deceased.
85 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
78. On considering these admitted facts and proved fact, this Court held that, the plaintiff No.3 is being divorced wife of deceased Basavaraj V.Hiremath, She is not at all relationship with deceased and his properties. The defendant No.4 married with deceased after granting decree for divorce, the deceased need seek permission from his head office to marry with defendant No.4 during his life time. Therefore, contention taken by defendant No.1 and 2 not applicable to suit bearing O.S.No.8210/2015.
79. In present suits, Basavaraj V Hiremath was intimated to head of officer/defendant No.2 after marriage with plaintiff No.3. This job of deceased was good, but next two parts or events are not intimated to office of defendant No.2 about firstly his marriage divorce with plaintiff No.3 and secondly his remarriage 86 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 with defendant No.4 within stipulated time. But non intimating of remarriage of defendant No.4 to defendant No.2 in particular form, could not deprived legal rights of defendant No.4. Therefore, the plaintiff No.1 and 2 and defendant No.4 is O.S.No 4958/2015 (defendant No.1 and 2 and plaintiff in O.S.No 8210/2015) are equally entitle share in service and monetary benefits and/or properties described in suit 'B' schedule. They are not entitled permanent injunction as claimed by both parties, These parties except plaintiff No.3 entitle for receive amount as per their share and they also entitle for declaration of their legal status with deceased Basavaraj V.Hiremath.
80. The plaintiff No.3 and defendant No.3 have played fraud on Court while obtaining compromise decree in O.S.No 34/2015 on file before learned Senior 87 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 Civil Judge and JMFC Hungund on 08.04.2015. Further, the plaintiff No.3 suppressed the true and relevant material, while obtaining heirship certificate from office of defendant No.7. In these suit also she having knowledge of relationship of defendant No.4 with deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath, She has suppressed the relevant facts before Court. Therefore, this Court relied Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court as under;
(2010) 14 SCC 38 Ramjas Foundation Vs Union of India
21.The principle that a person who does not come to the Court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance and, in any case, such person is not entitled to any relief is applicable not only to the petitions filed under Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution but also to the cases instituted in others courts and judicial forums. The object underlying the principle is that every Court is not only entitled but is duty bound to protect itself from unscrupulous litigants who do not have any respect for truth and who try to pollute the stream of justice by resorting to falsehood or by making misstatement or by suppressing facts which have bearing on adjudication of the issue(s) arising in the case. (underlying by me, for emphases) 88 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 Aforesaid reiterated in recent Judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Maxim India Integrated Circuit Design (P) Ltd Vs Andappa & Ors (Civil Appeals No 3650-3655/2018 Dtd 02.01.2025). Therefore, the plaintiff No.3 is not entitle for relief claimed. Therefore, issue No.2, 3 and 6 in O.S.No 4958/2015 are answered in the partly affirmative and issue No.4 and 5 in O.S.No 8210/2015 answered in the partly affirmative.
ISSUE No.8 in O.S.No 4958/2015 and ISSUE No.7 is O.S.No8210/2015.
81. For going reasons and finding on issues, I have proceed to pass following;
89 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 ORDERS The suit of plaintiff No.1 to 3 i.e., O.S.No 4958/2015 and suit of plaintiff i.e., O.S.No 8210/2015 are hereby partly decreed.
Further, it is declared that, the plaintiff No.1 and 2 in O.S.No 4958/2015 (defendant No.1 and 2 in O.S.No 8210/2015) are declared that both are being son and daughter/children of deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath as class-I legal heir and defendant No.4 in O.S.No 4958/2015 (plaintiff in O.S.No 8210/2015) is declared that being wife of deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath as class-I legal heir.
Further, declared that these (son, daughter and wife of deceased) have equal right to receive amount described in suit 'B' schedule properties/service and monetary benefits of deceased Basavaraj V.Hiremath.
90 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 The defendant No.2 in O.S.No 4958/2015 (defendant No.6 in O.S.No 8210/2015) hereby directed to equally i.e., 1/3 each disbursed the amount described in suit 'B' schedule properties/service and monetary benefits of deceased Basavaraj V.Hiremath in favour of the plaintiff No.1 and 2 in O.S.No 4958/2015 (defendant No.1 and 2 in O.S.No 8210/2015) and defendant No.4 in O.S.No 4958/2015 (plaintiff in O.S.No 8210/2015) within 60 days from the date of this order.
The plaintiff No.1 and 2 in O.S.No 4958/2015 (defendant No.1 and 2 in O.S.No 8210/2015) and defendant No.4 in O.S.No 4958/2015 (plaintiff in O.S.No 8210/2015) are class-I legal heir of deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath. Therefore the defendant No.1 in O.S.No 4958/2015 (defendant No.5 in O.S.No 8210/2015) directed to consider who is eligible candidate for appointment on ground 91 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 of compassionate due to death of Basavaraj V.Hiremath in service within reasonable time. Further declared that succession/heirship certificate issued by defendant No.7 is O.S.No 8210/2015 is not in accordance with law. Therefore, the plaintiff No.3 is directed to returned the said certificate to office of defendant No.7 within 30 days from the date of this order.
Other reliefs claimed in both suit (O.S.No 4958/2015 and in O.S.No 8210/2015) are hereby dismissed.
On considering relief claimed for both parties and their relationship, no order passed as to cost.
Office is directed to draw decree accordingly.
92 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 Officer is further directed to keep the original Judgment in O.S.No 4958/2015 and it's copy keep in O.S.No.8210/2015 (Typed by the Stenographer on my dictation, the transcript revised and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 13th day of January, 2025) (Sri. I. P. Naik) LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-64), BENGALURU CITY.
ANNEXURES
1. List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff:-
PW1 : Smt.Sudha
PW2 : Vasudev Achar
PW3 : Savitha Poojari
2. List of documents marked for the plaintiff :
Ex.P1 : RTC
Ex.P2 : Endorsement
Ex.P3 : Survival Certificate
Ex.P4 & 5 : Account extract
Ex.P6 : Photo
93 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
Ex.P7 : CD
Ex.P8 : Postal receipt
Ex.P.9 & 10 : 2 invitation Cards
Ex.P11 to 14 : 4 receipts
Ex.P.15 : Form No.6
Ex.P.16 : Letter dt: 02.05.2015
Ex.P.17 & 18 : 2 postal acknowledgment Ex.P.19 & 20 : 2 postal receipt Ex.P.21 : Endorsement Ex.P.22 : Invitation card from Mahalakshmi Temple Ex.P.23 : Death certificate Ex.P.24 : List of the family members of the deceased.
3. List of witnesses examined for the defendant:
DW1 : Smt.Rajeshwari
DW2 : Jagadish
DW3 : Shabbin Hussain
DW4 : Mahadevaiah
DW5 : Venkatesh Chintaguntala
DW6 : Hiremath.N.D
94 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
4. List of documents marked for the defendant:
Ex.D.1 : Divorce proceedings from Family court. Ex.D.2 : Copy of Memorandum of Settlement in M.C.No.2385/2012.
Ex.D.3 : Employee I.D card of the deceased.
Ex.D.4 : Marriage receipt dated 18.02.2013.
Ex.D.5 : Marriage certificate.
Ex.D.6 : Smart Card of Police
Ex.D.7 : Order sheet in M.C.No.2385/2012
Ex.D.8 : Decree copy in M.C.No.2385/2012
Ex.D.9 : Memorandum of Settlement in
M.C.No.2385/2012.
Ex.D.10 : Death certificate.
Ex.D.11 : Police Notice
Ex.D.12 : Letter to Tahisildar.
Ex.D.13 : Receipt
Ex.D.14 : Letter to Tahsildar
Ex.D.15 : Receipt
Ex.D.16 : List of members of the deceased family Ex.D.17 : Letter to Tahsildar Ex.D.18 : Letter to DG and IGP Ex.D.19 : Endorsement from the office of theDGP and IGP.
95 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 Ex.D.20 : Application U/s.174 of Cr.P.C.
Ex.D.21 : Complaint
Ex.D.22 : Order sheet in O.S.No.34/2015
Ex.D.23 : Plaint Copy of O.S.No.34/2015
Ex.D.24 : Compromise Order in O.s.No.34/2015
Ex.D.25 : Copy of the Compromise decree-E-
stamp.
Ex.D.26 : Application filed under RTI Act.
Ex.D.27 : No due certificate.
Ex.D.28 : LIC Policy
Ex.D.29 : Copy of the Compromise petition
Ex.D.30 : Letter to Bank manager
Ex.D.31 : Letter of undertaking.
Ex.D.32 : Photos
to 36
Ex.D.37 : Invoice
Digitally signed
irappanna (Sri. I.by
P. irappanna
Naik)
Pavadi Pavadi Naik
LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-64),Date: 2025.01.13 BENGALURU CITY.
Naik 17:08:13 +0530
96 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
(order typed vide separate sheet) ORDERS The suit of plaintiff No.1 to 3 i.e., O.S.No 4958/2015 and suit of plaintiff i.e., O.S.No 8210/2015 are hereby partly decreed.
Further, it is declared that, the plaintiff No.1 and 2 in O.S.No 4958/2015 (defendant No.1 and 2 in O.S.No 8210/2015) are declared that both are being son and daughter/children of deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath as class-I legal heir and defendant No.4 in O.S.No 4958/2015 (plaintiff in O.S.No 8210/2015) is declared that being wife of deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath as class-I legal heir.
97 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 Further, declared that these (son, daughter and wife of deceased) have equal right to receive amount described in suit 'B' schedule properties/service and monetary benefits of deceased Basavaraj V.Hiremath.
The defendant No.2 in O.S.No 4958/2015 (defendant No.6 in O.S.No 8210/2015) hereby directed to equally i.e., 1/3 each disbursed the amount described in suit 'B' schedule properties/service and monetary benefits of deceased Basavaraj V.Hiremath in favour of the plaintiff No.1 and 2 in O.S.No 4958/2015 (defendant No.1 and 2 in O.S.No 8210/2015) and defendant No.4 in O.S.No 4958/2015 (plaintiff in O.S.No 8210/2015) within 60 days from the date of this order.
98 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 The plaintiff No.1 and 2 in O.S.No 4958/2015 (defendant No.1 and 2 in O.S.No 8210/2015) and defendant No.4 in O.S.No 4958/2015 (plaintiff in O.S.No 8210/2015) are class-I legal heir of deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath. Therefore the defendant No.1 in O.S.No 4958/2015 (defendant No.5 in O.S.No 8210/2015) directed to consider who is eligible candidate for appointment on ground of compassionate due to death of Basavaraj V.Hiremath in service within reasonable time.
Further declared that succession/heirship certificate issued by defendant No.7 is O.S.No 8210/2015 is not in
accordance with law. Therefore, the plaintiff No.3 is directed to returned the said certificate to 99 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015 office of defendant No.7 within 30 days from the date of this order.
Other reliefs claimed in both suit (O.S.No 4958/2015 and in O.S.No 8210/2015) are hereby dismissed.
On considering relief claimed for both parties and their relationship, no order passed as to cost.
Office is directed to draw decree accordingly.
Office is further directed to keep the original Judgment in O.S.No 4958/2015 and it's copy kept in O.S.No.8210/2015.
(Sri. I. P. Naik) LXIII ACCL & SJ (CCH-64), BENGALURU CITY.
100 O.S.No 4958/2015 C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015