Bangalore District Court
Tulsi B Alias Shakuntala vs Lalitha on 4 August, 2025
1 O.S. No.565/2007 &
C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010
KABC010090962007
C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9
(Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgments in
Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XL ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY : (CCH-41)
::Present::
Smt. Veena N., B.A.L., L.L.B.,
XL Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
Dated this 04th day of August, 2025.
O.S. No.565/2007
PLAINTIFF :: Smt. Tulsi B. @ Shakuntala, W/o. Late.
Dhananjaya, D/o. Sreeramulu, Aged about 24
years, Profession: Advocate, R/at: H.No.11, Type-
III, Donimalai, South Block, Sandur (T), Bellary
District.
(By Sri. Basavaraj Poojar S., Advocate)
V/s.
2 O.S. No.565/2007 &
C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010
DEFENDANTS :: 1. Smt. Lalitha, W/o. Late. K.R.Janardhana Naidu,
Aged about 54 years, Hindu, Housewife, R/o.
SWMC, B-18 Unit, U1B, New Colony Upstairs
Building, Bhadravathi.
:: 2. K.J.Laxminarayana, S/o. Late. K.R.Janardhana
Naidu, Aged about 30 years, Hindu, Housewife,
R/o. SWMC, B-18 Unit, New Colony Upstairs
Building, Bhadravathi.
:: 3. The Manager, LIC of India, Bhadravathi,
Shimoga District.
:: 4. The General Manager, (Personnel) Mysore
Paper Mills Ltd., Bhadravathi.
:: 5. The Superintendent, M.P.M. Combined Hospital,
Bhadravathi.
(By Sri. S.V.S. Law Chamber, for Adv. for D-1)
(By Sri. Rakesh S., Adv. for D-3)
(By Sri. M.R.C. Ravi. Adv. for D-4)
(D-2 & 5 - Exparte)
Date of Institution of the :: 19-01-2007
Suit
Nature of the Suit :: PARTITION
Date of commencement of :: 26-07-2010
recording of evidence
Date on which the :: 04-08-2025
Judgment was pronounced
Total Duration :: Year/s Month/s Day/s
18 06 16
3 O.S. No.565/2007 &
C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010
O.S. No.7345/2010
PLAINTIFF :: Lalitha, W/o. Late. K.R.Janardhana Naidu, Major,
B-18-U-1B, SWMC, New Colony, Bhadravathi.
(By Sri. B.K.Girisha, Advocate)
V/s.
DEFENDANTS :: 1. Tulasi @ Shakunthala, D/o. Sri. Ramulu B.,
Major, N.M.D.C. Type-3 Quarters, No.11, South
Block, Donimalai, Sandoor.
:: 2. Chairman, Mysore Paper Mills, Bhadravathi,
:: 3. The Manager, L.I.C. of India, Bhadravathi.
(By Sri. G.S.Ravishankar, Adv. for D-1)
(By Sri. M.R.C. Ravi, Adv. for D-2)
(By Sri. Rakesh.S., Adv. for D-3)
Date of Institution of the :: 20-10-2010
Suit
Nature of the Suit :: DECLARATION & INJUNCTION
Date of commencement of :: 26-07-2010
recording of evidence
Date on which the :: 04-08-2025
Judgment was pronounced
Total Duration :: Year/s Month/s Day/s
14 09 15
(VEENA N.)
XL Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
4 O.S. No.565/2007 &
C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010
JUDGMENT
The suit bearing O.S. No.565/2007 is filed by the plaintiff as against the defendants for partition and separate possession of her ½ share in schedule 'A' to 'C' properties.
The suit bearing O.S. No.7345/2010 is filed by the plaintiff as against the defendants for declaration that the marriage between K.J.Dhananjaya and defendant No.1 is not consummated and is null and void and to declare that defendant No.1 is not entitled to receive death benefits and pension amount and Life Insurance policy benefits of K.J.Dhananjaya and to declare that death of K.J.Dhananjaya is due to the cruelty caused by defendant No.1.
2. Brief facts of the case in O.S. No.565/2007 is as hereunder:-
It is the case of plaintiff that she is the legally wedded of K.J.Dhananjaya and their marriage was solemnized on 31.05.2004 at Donimalai Township, 5 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 Sandoor Taluk, Bellary District and the marriage was consummated between the plaintiff and K.J.Dhananjaya. It is stated that her husband was working as Pharmacist under the defendants No.4 and 5 and he died by committing suicide on 25.08.2004.
The defendant No.1 is the mother and defendant No.2 is the brother of deceased K.J.Dhananjaya. Late. K.J.Dhananjaya during his life time had taken policies with defendant No.3 bearing No.623347037 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, policy bearing No.623366866 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and policy bearing No.621914077 for a sum of Rs.40,000/- and said policy have been insured with the defendant No.3 and defendant No.1 is shown as nominee in the said policies. After the death of K.J.Dhananjaya, the defendant No.1 and the plaintiff being the class-I legal heirs are entitled to receive the amount and inspite of it, the defendant No.1 has received a sum of Rs.3,21,345/- in respect of policy No.623347037 and hence, the plaintiff is entitled for her 6 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 share in the said amount. The plaintiff got issued legal notice on 10.09.2004 to defendant No.3 requesting him to not to disburse the amount and despite of it, the defendant No.3 has released the amount in favour of defendant No.1.
3. It is stated that her father-in-law by name K.R.Janardhana Naidu purchased a site under registered Sale Deed dated 29.04.1995 from Mysore Paper Mills Employees House Building Co-operative Society and subsequently, a rectification deed came to be executed on 09.12.2005. Her father-in-law died leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2 as his legal heirs and as such, she is entitled for 1/3 rd share in 'B' schedule property and ½ share in 'A' and 'C' schedule property. Her husband died during his service leaving behind the plaintiff as her class-I legal heir and as such, she along with defendant No.1 is equally entitled for death benefits of Late. K.J.Dhananjaya. The 7 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 defendants No.1 and 2 being colluded with each other refused to allot the legitimate share of the plaintiff and hence, the plaintiff issued legal notice on 13.10.2006 and they have intentionally avoided the service of notice and since she along with the defendant No.1 is equally entitled for share, the present suit is filed.
4. In pursuance to the summons issued the defendants No.1 and 3 filed their written statement. The defendant No.4 though caused appearance has not chosen to file written statement. Inspite of service of summons defendants No.2 and 5 remained absent and hence, were placed exparte. The defendant No.1 who is the mother-in-law of the plaintiff has in her written statement admitted that the plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of Late. K.J.Dhananjaya and it is denied that the marriage was consummated between the plaintiff and her son. It is stated that this fact of non consummation of marriage is well transpired from the 8 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 death note of K.J.Dhananjaya. It is stated that the husband of defendant No.1 was an employee at Mysore Paper Mills, Bhadravathi and he died in an accident on 30.06.1996. After his death, the company offered an employment to the family of K.R.Janardhana Naidu on compensatory ground. The defendant No.1 being the wife of Janardhana Naidu was entitled for employment on compensatory ground. But there was a partition between the mother Lalitha and Late. K.J.Dhananjaya, that her son K.J.Dhananjaya has to get employment on compensatory ground and defendant No.1 would become the member of Mysore Paper Mills Employees House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. Bengaluru and K.J.Dhananjaya had given no objection to get the membership in the society and likewise, the defendant No.1 had given no objection to get employment to her son K.J.Dhananjaya. After getting no objection K.J.Dhananjaya secured employment and the defendant No.1 became an 9 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 associate member of the society on 23.05.1999. Thereafter, on the intimation of the society, the defendant No.1 paid Rs.21,360/- by way of demand draft dated 08.07.2004 and after receipt of the demand draft, the society had issued possession certificate on 05.01.2005 and thus, 'B' schedule property is the self- acquired property of defendant No.1 and the plaintiff has no right, title or interest over the 'B' schedule property. If the defendant No.1 had not paid the amount to the society, the society would get the allotment canceled and hence, it is her absolute property.
5. It is further stated that though the marriage was solemnized on 31.05.2004, the marriage was not consummated and due to the cruelty caused by the plaintiff her son committed suicide on 25.08.2004 as the plaintiff demanded ornaments, sarees from K.J.Dhananjaya which caused depression resulting in his suicide. The defendant No.1 has filed private 10 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 complaint before the Court at Bhadravathi in PCR. No.350/2006 and the police have registered FIR. It is stated that her son made the defendant No.1 as nominee to the insurance policies and hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for the amount. It is stated that the plaintiff is now married to one Prakash and in view of the death of her son and her remarriage, the plaintiff is not entitled for any of the reliefs claimed. Further as per the family pension scheme, the plaintiff is receiving family pension of Rs.2,050/- and the defendant with a malafide intention has submitted false documents seeking family pension and she is now getting family pension under individual name by suppressing the dependency of defendant No.1. Thus, the schedule 'B' property being her self-acquired property, the plaintiff is not entitled for any share and since she is the cause for the death of her son K.J.Dhananjaya she is not entitled for any monetary benefits and contending these facts sought for dismissal of suit.
11 O.S. No.565/2007 &
C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010
6. The defendant No.3 which is the LIC Company has in its written statement admitted that the suit policies are issued on the life of deceased life assured Sri. K.J.Dhananjaya and under the said policy the defendant No.1 is shown as nominee and as per Sec.39 of Insurance Act, 1938 as sum of Rs.3,21,343/- under policy No.623347037 is released in favour of defendant No.1 on 16.10.2004 and the other policies has not been settled and the same is yet to be admitted after receipt of requirements for settlement. The defendant No.1 has received the policy money on behalf of the legal heirs and mere fact that the claim has been settled in favour of registered nominee does not mean that the entire policy money belongs to her and thus contending these facts sought to pass necessary orders.
7. Brief facts of the case in O.S. No.7345/2010 is as hereunder:-
12 O.S. No.565/2007 &
C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 The plaintiff is the mother-in-law of the defendant No.1. The plaintiff had two sons by name K.J.Dhananjaya and K.J.Lakshminarayana and among them K.J.Dhananjaya was working in the defendant No.2 company as a Pharmacist. He was appointed on compensatory ground on the death of plaintiff's husband. The marriage of her son K.J.Dhananjaya was solemnized with defendant No.1 on 31.05.2004 at Donimalai Sandoor Taluk. Since the date of marriage, K.J.Dhananjaya was not happy with his wife due to the cruelty caused by defendant No.1 and she was demanding golden ornaments which caused mental depression to her son. Due to the cruelty of defendant No.1, her son K.J.Dhananjaya committed suicide and in the death note he has clearly stated about cruelty caused by defendant No.1 and that the marriage was not consummated between them. The defendant No.1 abated the suicide of her son K.J.Dhananjaya only with an intention to get his death benefits and with this 13 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 intention she has filed number of suits in order to harass the plaintiff. Recently, the plaintiff came to know that, the defendant No.1 married one Prakash. Inspite of her having no manner of right, title or interest over the death benefits of K.J.Dhananjaya and though she has not fulfilled her marital obligations and has committed criminal offence, she has filed various suits against the plaintiff in order to have unlawful gain. The plaintiff filed complaint against the defendant No.1 in the Court of Sr. Civil Judge, which is numbered as PCR. No.350/2006 which is under enquiry. The defendant No.1 never lived in the house of plaintiff, after the death of her son. Instead she is taking pension from the defendant No.2 company. The defendant No.2 without any succession certificate issued by the Court has paid death benefits to defendant No.1 though she was not having any right to receive the same. Further, the defendant No.1 has also made attempts to receive the insurance amount from the LIC policies of 14 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 K.J.Dhananjaya and hence, the cause of action arose to file the suit and the present suit is filed seeking aforesaid declaratory reliefs.
8. In pursuance to the summons issued the defendants No.1 to 3 caused appearance and filed their written statement. The defendant No.1 in her written statement has admitted the relationship. But she has categorically denied all the allegations made in the plaint and it is stated that she is the legally wedded wife of K.J.Dhananjaya and during the marriage her parents had given dowry of Rs.1,05,000/- and silver and golden articles and the marriage was performed at the expenses of her father and after the marriage, the marriage was consummated between the defendant No.1 and her husband. After the marriage, due to Ashadamasa she was taken to her parents house and after that the defendant No.1 came to Bhadravathi and was residing with her husband. On 24.08.2004 when 15 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 the defendant No.1 was at Bhadravathi her husband committed suicide and when she was in shock the plaintiff took all the golden ornaments of defendant No.1. Even after the death of her husband, she lived in the plaintiff's house and during that time, she was harassed and assaulted by the family of the plaintiff and after completion of 11th day ceremony she left the house and the plaintiff had taken all the sarees, silver articles and golden ornaments of the defendant No.1. It is stated that she led happy marital life with her husband K.J.Dhananjaya, but the plaintiff demanded more dowry and because of this defendant No.1 committed suicide. It is stated that soon after the death, the railway authorities has conducted enquiry and the plaintiff and other persons have given statement before the Railway police saying that death was not due to the reasons of harassment of defendant No.1 nor the plaintiff and so the case was closed as U.D.R. Hence, the defendant No.1 has not abated suicide of her 16 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 husband and the plaintiff has made baseless allegations against her. Since the plaintiff tried to take death benefits without the consent and knowledge of this defendant No.1 she filed suit in O.S. No.81/2005 at Sandoor seeking relief of permanent injunction and subsequent to that the defendant No.1 filed O.S. No.565/2007 seeking partition and separate possession. Having knowledge of the filing of the previous suit, the plaintiff has filed the present suit and hence, the suit is not maintainable. The defendant No.1 is legally wedded wife of K.J.Dhananjaya and she is the coparcener of the family of the plaintiff. It is stated that her husband had taken life insurance policy and since he was unmarried his mother was shown as nominee and subsequent to the marriage, the name of defendant No.1 is to be included in the policy and the defendant No.1 has equal right and share in the benefits of her husband. Taking undue advantage of the plaintiff being nominee she has received the policy amount from the 17 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 LIC, India and though this defendant No.1 had issued notice to defendant No.3 to not to disburse the amount the same is released. She has denied her marriage with one Prakash and it is stated that the plaintiff has made defamatory statement against the defendant No.1 to grab the death benefits. It is stated that she is the legally wedded wife of her deceased husband the defendant No.2 has sanctioned pension amount to her and she is receiving the pension amount and the plaintiff in order to grab the said benefits has filed the suit and hence, the suit is not maintainable and contending these facts sought for dismissal of suit.
9. The defendant No.2 has in his written statement contended that the benefits payable to Late. K.J.Dhananjaya are pending with the company for settlement and same will be considered and settled only on the final orders of this Court. It is stated that R.P.F.C. Hubli is paying pension to the defendant No.1 on furnishing of records by M.P.M. and the pension is 18 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 being paid by R.P.F.C. Hubli and not by M.P.M. as alleged by the plaintiff. Further, O.S. No.404/2004 is filed on the file of III Addl. Civil Judge, Bellary and it is dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction and other suit is filed by the defendant No.1 in O.S. No.81/2005 at Sandoor and another suit in O.S. No.565/2007 was also pending for disposal. So in view of all these pending cases the terminal/ death benefits payable to legal heirs Late. K.J.Dhananjaya has been withheld for final disposal of the suits and the suit is bad for mis- joinder or non-joinder necessary and proper parties and this defendant No.2 is not a necessary party and sought to dispose the suit in accordance with law.
10. The defendant No.3 has in his written statement has stated that the policy numbers are not furnished by the plaintiff. However, Sri. K.L.Dhananjaya took three policies, one bearing No.623347037 for Rs.1,00,000/- the date of commencement of which was 19 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 10.10.2004, second one bearing No.623366866 for Rs.1,00,000/- the date of commencement of which was 15.02.2002 and third one bearing No.621914077 for Rs.40,000/- the date of commencement was 28.03.2002 and all the policies are nominated in favour of Smt. Lalitha, who is the mother of the life assured. The claim under the policy No.623347037 has been settled by this defendant on 16.10.2004 in favour of the nominee Smt. Lalithamma for Rs.3,21,345/- as per Section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938. Other two policies are very early claim, the Corporation has to call for early claim requirements as to the genuineness of the claim and only after the receipt of the satisfactory claim requirements, the Corporation shall consider the admissibility or otherwise of the claim under the said two policies and in light of the same, the suit as brought without complying with the said required satisfactory requirements, the suit as filed is highly premature and is also not maintainable. Further without prejudice to 20 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 the above, it is submitted that the suit in O.S. No.404/2004 as on the file of the learned III Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bellary filed by Smt. Tulasi has been dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. Other suits filed by the Smt. Tulasi, one in O.S. No.81/2005 as on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sandur and another O.S. No.565/2007 as on the file of the learned Add. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru are also pending for disposal and in the said suit, this defendant Corporation has taken steps to appear and defend.
11. Heard arguments of learned counsel for defendant No.1 and 3. In the absence of representation for plaintiff, this Court could not have the benefit of hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for plaintiff. Perused records.
12. The aforesaid pleadings have occasioned following:-
21 O.S. No.565/2007 &
C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 ISSUES IN O.S. NO.565/2007
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she being the legally wedded wife of Late.
Dhananjaya has succeeded to the interest and estate of her deceased husband with defendants No.1 and 2 as alleged ?
2. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that though the plaintiff married Dhananjaya the marriage was not consummated as alleged ?
3. Whether the 1st defendant further proves that she along with her son 2nd defendant Lakshminarayana only succeeded to the interest and estate of the deceased Dhananjaya in exclusion of the plaintiff as alleged ?
4. Whether 1st defendant proves that she is the absolute owner and in possession of 'B' schedule property as alleged ?
5. Whether 1st defendant proves that she being the nominee in the Insurance Policies at Schedule 'A' of the plaint on 22 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 the death of the insured Dhananjaya she is entitled to get the policy amount as alleged ?
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of her ½ share in 'A' & 'C' schedule properties and 1/3rd share in 'B' schedule property as prayed ?
7. To what reliefs, if any, parties are entitled ?
ADDL. ISSUE
1. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that the plaintiff has been receiving family pension after the death of Dhananjaya and she (defendant No.1) is also having equal right over the same ?
ISSUES IN O.S. NO.7345/2010
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the marriage between K.J.Dhananjaya and defendant No.1 Tulasi was not consummated and as such the marriage is null and void as alleged ?
23 O.S. No.565/2007 &
C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the death of K.J.Dhananjaya is caused by cruelty given by defendant No.1 as alleged ?
3. Whether the plaintiff further proves that defendant No.1 has married to one Prakash as alleged ?
4. Whether the plaintiff further proves that defendant No.1 is not entitled to receive death benefits, pension amount and LIC policy amount of Late. K.J.Dhananjaya as alleged ?
5. Whether defendant No.1 proves that she being the legally wedded wife of K.J.Dhananjaya alone is entitled to receive death benefits, pension amount and LIC policy amount of Late. K.J.Dhananjaya as alleged ?
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration sought against defendant No.1 as prayed ?
7. To what reliefs, if any, the parties are entitled ?
24 O.S. No.565/2007 &
C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010
13. The plaintiff got examined herself as P.W.1 and she has relied upon 28 documents marked at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.28. During the course of cross- examination of P.W.1, one document is confronted and is marked as Ex.D.1.
14. On the contrary, the defendant No.1 got examined herself as D.W.1 and she has relied upon 9 documents marked at Ex.D.2 to Ex.D.10 and closed the evidence.
15. My findings to the above issues in O.S. No.565/2007 is as follows:
ISSUE NO.1 :: In the Negative.
ISSUE NO.2 :: In the Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.3 :: In the Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.4 :: In the Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.5 :: In the Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.6 :: In the Negative.
ISSUE NO.7 :: In the Negative.
ADDL. ISSUE No.1 :: Partly in the Affirmative.
25 O.S. No.565/2007 &
C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010
16. My findings to the above issues in O.S. No.7345/2010 is as follows:
ISSUE NO.1 :: In the Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.2 :: In the Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.3 :: In the Negative.
ISSUE NO.4 :: In the Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.5 :: In the Negative.
ISSUE NO.6 :: Partly in the Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.7 :: As per final order for the
following;
REASONS
17. ISSUES NO.1 AND 2 IN O.S. NO.565/2007 AND ISSUES NO.1 & 2 IN O.S. NO.7345/2010 :: These issues are taken up collectively for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts and also for convenience of the Court.
For the purpose of convenience the parties referred to in O.S. No.565/2007 shall be herein after be treated as plaintiff and defendants. O.S. No.565/2007 is filed by the plaintiff as against her mother-in-law and brother-in-law and the other defendants seeking relief 26 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 of partition and separate possession of her ½ share in schedule 'A' and 'C' properties which are the sum assured under the Life Insurance Policies obtained by deceased Dhananjaya and death benefits accrued to the deceased Dhananjaya which is recoverable from defendants No.4 and 5. The plaintiff has also sought for partition and separate possession of her 1/3 rd share in the suit 'B' schedule property which is a site property bearing No.222 situated at Mallathahalli Village, Yeshawanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru.
18. On the other hand, O.S. No.7345/2010 is filed by the defendant No.1 herein i.e. the mother-in-law of the plaintiff as against the plaintiff and the other two defendants for declaration that the marriage between her deceased son K.J.Dhananjaya and defendant No.1 is not consummated and is null and void and to declare that defendant No.1 is not entitled to receive death benefits and pension amount and Life Insurance policy 27 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 benefits of K.J.Dhananjaya and to declare that death of K.J.Dhananjaya is due to cruelty caused by defendant No.1.
19. Before adverting to the merits of the case, the question that needs to be adjudicated is as to whether the civil Court has jurisdiction to declare that the marriage between the plaintiff and late Dhananjaya is not consummated and is a void marriage. By virtue of Section 7 of The Family Courts Act, the jurisdiction to try the suit of present nature vests with the Family court. But, it is necessary to take note of the fact that, O.S. No.7345/2010 was initially filed before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, JMFC at Bhadravathi and it was registered as O.S. No.134/2007. The suit bearing O.S. No.565/2007 was filed before this Court seeking relief of partition and separate possession. Based on the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Civil Petition No.212/2009 dated 03.09.2010, the suit bearing O.S. No.134/2007 is withdrawn from the said Court and is 28 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 transferred to this Court and is registered as O.S. No.7345/2010 and accordingly, both the suits are clubbed and taken up simultaneously for common adjudication of the suit. So by virtue of the order passed by Hon'ble High Court, jurisdiction to try the suit vests with this Court and accordingly, this Court has proceeded to adjudicate the issues involved in both the suits.
20. The undisputed facts which is apparent from the pleadings and evidence placed on record is that, the defendant No.1 is the wife of Late. K.R.Janardhana Naidu and they had two children by name K.J.Dhananjaya and K.J.Lakshiminarayana. The said Janardhana Naidu was working at Mysore Papers Mills i.e. in the company of defendant No.4 and he died on 30.06.1996 in a road traffic accident leaving behind his wife i.e. defendant No.1 and his two children i.e. defendant No.2 and Late. Dhananjaya as his legal heirs to succeed to his estate. It is also not in dispute that, 29 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 the marriage of plaintiff with Dhananjaya was solemnized on 31.05.2004 at Donimalai Township, Sandoor Taluk, Bellary District. Late. Dhananjaya was appointed as a pharmacist in the company of defendant No.4 on compassionate ground in view of death of Janardhana Naidu during service. It has also remained undisputed that Sri. Dhananjaya immediately after 3 months of his marriage died by committing suicide on 25.08.2004.
21. In the instant suit, the defendant has seriously raised a contention that the marriage between her Late. son and plaintiff was not consummated and her son died on account of the cruelty caused by the plaintiff and as such, she is not entitled for the reliefs claimed.
22. Learned counsel for defendant No.1 in his arguments submits that since Late. Dhananjaya committed suicide on account of the cruelty caused by the plaintiff due to non-consummation of marriage, the 30 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 plaintiff is debarred from claiming any share over the suit schedule property by virtue of the Sec.25 of the Hindu Succession Act. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the judgment of our Hon'ble High Court reported in 2001 (4) KCCR SN 424 - in case of G.S.Sadashiva and Another V/s. M.C.Srinivasan and Others wherein Hon'ble High Court has held thus:
Held: It is clear from Section 25 of the Act that the person who commits a murder or abets the commission of murder is disqualified from inheriting the property of the person murdered. Acquittal by a Criminal Court is not a bar to prove that the person accused has murdered the deceased. No doubt, while dealing with Section 25 of the Act, one has to be liberal in defining the word "murder" and one should not be too technical. In popular sense the word "murder"
means unlawful homicide or unlawful killing of human-being. In popular parlance the word "murder" is not used or understood in the technical sense as defined in Section 300 of I.P.C., therefore, to construe the said word in technical sense as defined in Section 300 I.P.C., will result in defeating the very object of the Legislature. It will also run counter to the well established principles of equity, justice and good conscience. But in the circumstances of the case, High Court declined to interfere with the judgment and decree of the trial Court. 31 O.S. No.565/2007 &
C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010
23. On hearing learned counsel for defendant No.1 and on perusal of record, the moot question that needs adjudication is as to whether the marriage was not consummated between the plaintiff and deceased Dhananjaya, which resulted in suicidal death of Dhananjaya, as this issue has a direct bearing on the case on hand.
24. Since the defendant has raised a serious defense about the non-consummation of marriage and the issues in O.S. No.7345/2010 are framed casting burden upon the defendant, to discharge the burden of proving that owing to non-consummation of marriage, her son was subjected to mental cruelty, which resulted in committal of suicide, D.W.1 has in her evidence deposed that the marriage of the plaintiff and Dhananjaya was not consummated. Due to the torture given and cruelty by the plaintiff her son committed suicide on 25.08.2004 and the plaintiff is sole responsible for her son's death. It is stated that prior to 32 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 the marriage and after the marriage the plaintiff was giving torture to her son and strangely made illegal demands of gold, sarees in the name of family tradition and she also openly expressed with her son that she was loving some person prior to her marriage and her marriage with her deceased son was forcible and against her wish and will. This in turn caused depression in the mind of her son and he was forced to commit suicide and in the death note, he has clearly expressed physical torture and mental cruelty met by him in the hands of the plaintiff. Except the torture given by the plaintiff, her son had no reason to take such extreme step. It is stated that her son was innocent, gentle and he never imagined that his life would be spoiled due to the plaintiff. If the plaintiff had expressed her willingness not to get married, the marriage would have been cancelled. The plaintiff married her son by suppressing her past and thus, she cheated her son and due to untimely demise of her son, she was 33 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 suffering mentally and physically and she is unable to come out of the mental agony.
25. She has further deposed that the plaintiff gave trouble and abated the suicide with an intention to have death benefits of her son and this intention of the plaintiff is disclosed by the fact that she executed several suits against these defendants one after the another. The plaintiff has failed to fulfill her marital obligation and hence, she cannot be considered as wife of her son and she has committed criminal offence by abating her son to commit suicide and she is solely responsible for the death of her son. Even after, the marriage, the plaintiff never lived in their house and she did not bother to attend the rituals conducted after the death of her son and instead she was busy in collecting the documents to get monetary benefits from the company. Thus, the marriage is not consummated and her son died due to the cruelty done by the plaintiff and as such, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief claimed. 34 O.S. No.565/2007 &
C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010
26. In support of her evidence, D.W.1 has relied upon Ex.D.1 which is the death note of Late. Dhananjaya. On careful reading of death note, it clearly shows that the marriage was solemnized on 31.05.2004 and he committed suicide on 25.08.2004 and he has stated that since the date of marriage they were not happy with each other and he has categorically mentioned about the rude and cruel behavior of the plaintiff and as to the mental cruelty suffered by him due to the act of the plaintiff. He has stated that during this span of 5 months of their marriage not even a single day he lived happily and she used to create problems and she did not have cordial relationship with his family members and there were unreasonable demands of gold ornaments and sarees on the guise of family tradition. He has stated that after the marriage due to Ashadamasa she had been to her maternal home and she started harassing him within span of 3 to 4 days after the marriage and he has very 35 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 clearly stated that the marriage was not consummated and the relevant note is extracted for reference as hereunder:
"One thing I want to make clear that I and she did not had any sexual interaction since she did not want baby so soon and also me since she said after the completion of her degree and also I could not get the safety measures. Really I very ashamed od writing all these things."
27. So even after completion of Ashadamasa for one month due to Adhikamasa she did not join the deceased Dhananjaya and he has in detail narrated the cruelty met out by him which resulted in he committing suicide. The death note makes it clear that there was no consummation of marriage due to refusal on the part of the plaintiff. Ex.D.2 is the letter issued by the defendant to the jurisdictional police seeking the copy of the death note and UDR report. Ex.D.3 is the UDR report which shows based on the report submitted by keyman of the concerned Railway police that a dead body of a male person is found UDR No.10/2004 is 36 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 registered under Sec.174 of Cr.P.C. and after investigation it was found that since the wife of the deceased was not cordial with the deceased and his family members, he has committed suicide and report is submitted under Sec.174 of Cr.P.C. Ex.D.4 is the endorsement issued by the jurisdictional police stating that Cr. No.142/2006 is registered against the plaintiff for the offence punishable under Sec.306 of IPC and the investigation is in process.
28. During cross-examination of D.W.1 no suggestions are putforth to elicit that, the death of Dhananjaya was not due to the cruelty caused by the plaintiff. So this implies that the plaintiff has impliedly admitted that the marriage was not consummated. Though the main issued involved in the present suit is about the consummation of marriage, there is no suggestion putforth to D.W.1 on this aspect. It is also significant to take note of the fact that, the plaintiff though got examined herself as P.W.1 she has not 37 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 whispered anything in her evidence that the marriage was consummated. During her cross-examination apart from denying the suggestion putforth that, the marriage was not consummated and she was the reason for committing suicide, she has not stated anything that the marriage was consummated. But she admits that her husband committed suicide within 3 months of marriage on Railway track at Bhadravathi. She denies the suggestion putforth that the marriage was against to her wish and due to pressure of her parents she consented for the marriage and on many occasions she tried to cancel the marriage with Dhananjaya and since she could not succeed after the marriage she picked up quarrel unnecessarily making unreasonable demands and thereby, caused cruelty to the Late. Dhananjaya. She denies all the suggestions putforth that the death was due to failure on her part to discharge marital obligations and she caused cruelty on the Dhananjaya which resulted in his death.
38 O.S. No.565/2007 &
C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010
29. On analysis of the evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1 and the documents relied upon by them. Admittedly marriage was solemnized on 31.05.2004 and Late. Dhananjaya committed suicide on 25.08.2004 leaving behind a death note making allegations against the plaintiff which is in detail discussed herein before. In the death note many aspects of cruelty is pleaded and it can be inferred that due to non-cooperation by the plaintiff to discharge her marital obligations and since Late. Dhananjaya was unable to meet out her unreasonable demands of gold, silver and sarees and her willful refusal to consummate the marriage has led to his suicide. The specific instances are narrated as to when and how he was tortured by the plaintiff. So from the death note, it is evident that since the date of marriage the plaintiff has not tried to consummate the marriage till death of her husband which has put the deceased into continuous mental agony. It is also important to take note of the 39 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 fact that as stated supra, the plaintiff has not stated anything in her evidence that the marriage was consummated. When the death note speaks that marriage was not consummated, the burden was upon the plaintiff to establish that marriage was consummated. No doubt only the parties to the marriage can speak of the fact as to the consummation of marriage. But in the instant suit, one of the spouse is dead and his death note shows marriage was not consummated. So under such circumstances, the burden was on the plaintiff to prove the consummation of marriage by placing convincing evidence on record, which is not done by the plaintiff. On the other hand, she has chosen to remain silent on the death note and has not challenged the same either in the present suit or in any other proceedings.
30. It is necessary to take note that, the fact that the marriage was not consummated is not specifically 40 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 denied by the plaintiff and there is nothing forthcoming in her evidence denying this fact. So the non- consummation of marriage and the non-cooperation of the plaintiff to discharge her marital obligations and her unreasonable demands amounts to mental cruelty which obviously has affected the mental health of deceased.
31. It is well settled law that failure to comply with one of the essential obligation of marital life by the wife would amount to subjecting the husband to cruelty. It is necessary to note that, one of the essential and principal obligation on the part of the wife is to satisfy biological urge of her husband which is natural instinct. In the instant suit, the evidence of D.W.1 coupled with the death note placed on record, shows there is failure to or refusal to effectuate the sexual intercourse by the wife without any reason on the part of the husband and this would amount to subjecting the husband to cruelty. 41 O.S. No.565/2007 &
C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 If one keeps oneself away from the basic fulfillment of marriage, it amounts to inflicting worse kind of cruelty affecting his/her mental health.
32. At this point of time, this Court has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case Rita Niffhawan v. Balkishan Nijhawan reported in AIR 1973 Del 200 where in Hon'ble High court has held that:
Marriage without sex is an anathema. Sex is the foundation of marriage and without a vigorous and harmonious sexual activity it would be impossible for any marriage to continue for long. It cannot be dented that the sexual activity in marriage has an extremely favourable influence on a woman's mind and body. The result being that if she dot's not get proper sexual satisfaction it will lead to depression and frustration. It has been said that the sexual relations when happy and harmonious vivifies woman's brain, develops her character and trebles her vitality. It must be recognized that nothing Is more fatal to marriage than disappointment in sexual intercourse.42 O.S. No.565/2007 &
C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010
33. So thus, in the instant suit failure on the part of the plaintiff to effectuate marital obligation without any reason has led to suicide of Dhananjaya. From the documents placed on record, the defendant No.1 has succeeded in establishing that the plaintiff has refused to effectuate her marital obligations since the date of marriage without any reason and the surrounding circumstances shows it has led to depression of Late. Dhananjaya which resulted in he committing suicide and non-consummation of marriage, since the inception of marriage amounts to cruelty and thus, this Court is of opinion that the defendant No.1 has succeeded in establishing that marriage was not consummated between the plaintiff and her late son Dhananjaya. Since the marriage between the plaintiff and Late. Dhananjaya is not consummated, the marriage becomes a void marriage and it gets annulled. Hence, the plaintiff cannot be considered as the legally wedded wife of Late. Dhananjaya and hence, issue No.1 in O.S. 43 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 No.565/2007 is answered in the Negative and issue No.2 in O.S. No.565/2007 are answered in the Affirmative and issues No.1 and 2 in O.S. No.7345/2010 are answered in the Affirmative.
34. ISSUE NO.3 IN O.S. NO.7345/2010 :: The defendant No.1 has though stated in her evidence that the plaintiff is married to one Prakash after the death of her son, except the oral testimony, absolutely there is no corroborative document placed on record to establish the marriage of the plaintiff with one Prakash. P.W.1 in her cross-examination has denied suggestions putforth that she is now married to one Prakash. So in the absence of any documents on record, relying on the self serving testimony of D.W.1 it cannot be held that the plaintiff is married to one Prakash and hence, this Court proceeds to answer issue No.3 in the Negative.
35. ISSUE NO.3 IN O.S. NO.565/2007 AND ISSUES NO.4 AND 5 IN O.S. NO.7345/2010 :: All these issues are taken up collectively to avoid repetition of facts.
44 O.S. No.565/2007 &
C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 As per my findings on issues No1 and 2 it is established that the marriage of plaintiff with Late. Dhananjaya is not consummated and the marriage is declared as null and void and under such circumstances, when the plaintiff is not the legally wedded wife of deceased Dhananjaya. She is not entitled to receive the monetary benefits which are accrued subsequent to the death of Dhananjaya and is also not entitled to receive the pension amount or the LIC policy amount. Hence, issue No.4 in O.S. No.7345/2010 is answered in the Affirmative and issue No.5 in O.S. No.7345/2010 is answered in the Negative and issue No.3 in O.S. No.565/2007 is answered in the Affirmative.
36. ISSUES NO.4 TO 6 IN O.S. NO.565/2007 ::
All these issues are taken up collectively to avoid repetition of facts.
Now the question that needs to be adjudicated is as to whether the plaintiff is entitled for any share in 45 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 respect of 'B' schedule property. The plaintiff has in her evidence deposed that her father-in-law Sri. Janardhana Naidu purchased 'B' schedule property under registered Sale Deed 29.04.2005 and it was subsequently rectified under deed of rectification dated 09.12.2005 executed by Mysore Paper Mills Employees House Building Co-operative Society and he died intestate leaving behind the defendants No.1 and 2 and the plaintiff as his legal heirs and hence, she is entitled for 1/3rd share in schedule 'B' property.
37. In support of her evidence, she has relied upon Ex.P.2 which is the sale deed dated 29.04.1995 which shows it is executed by Mysore Paper Mills Employees House Building Co-operative Society in favour of K.R.Janardhana Naidu subject to various conditions stipulated therein and one of the conditions which draws the attention of this Court is that the society has reserved the right to cancel the allotment in favour of the member, if inspite of demand to pay the 46 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 additional amount demanded by the society within 30 days from the date of any intimation sent by the society in this behalf and if the amount is not credited to the account of society within the prescribed period. So this condition stipulates that, whenever a demand is made by the society for payment of the additional expenses incurred by the society, the member in whose favour the site is allotted has to make good the amount within the stipulated period and in case of default the allotment of site gets cancelled. So this shows it is a conditional sale deed and the allotment gets cancelled on non fulfillment of demand.
38. Ex.P.3 is the deed of rectification dated 09.12.2005 which shows, it is executed by the society in favour of defendant No.1 and deed of rectification is executed with respect to the measurement of the property in the schedule of the original sale deed. Ex.P.4 is the encumbrance certificate which reflects the 47 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 execution of deed of rectification in favour of defendant No.1. Ex.P.7 shows khata stands in the name of defendant No.1. Ex.P.25 is the copy of the sale deed dated 29.01.2008 which shows the defendant No.1 has gifted the 'B' schedule property in favour of her son i.e. defendant No.2 and based on the gift deed as per Ex.P.26 'B' schedule property now stands in the name of defendant No.2. Ex.P.27 is the encumbrance certificate which reflects the execution of the gift deed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2.
39. During her cross-examination the suggestion putforth that, 'B' schedule property is not joint family property is denied and she admits that at present defendant No.2 is the owner of the schedule property on the basis of gift deed. Thus, the suggestion putforth that the 'B' schedule property is the self- acquired property of defendant No.1 is denied, but it is admitted that by virtue of the gift deed, the defendant 48 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 No.2 is the owner and he is in possession and enjoyment of the 'B' schedule property. The plaintiff herself has produced the gift deed which shows that the property is gifted in favour of defendant No.2 by defendant No.1. But she has not challenged the gift deed.
40. However, in view of the admission of P.W.1 coupled with gift deed, it is evident that the defendant No.1 is no more the owner of schedule property and at present it is the defendant No.2 who is the owner in possession and enjoyment of the 'B' schedule property and gift deed is not challenged by the plaintiff.
41. Be that as it may, the question that needs to be considered is as to whether the defendant No.1 had legal right to bequeath the property in favour of her son by executing the gift deed. It is the contention of defendant No.1 that the 'B' schedule property is her self-acquired property and she is the absolute owner of 49 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 the same and to substantiate the same, D.W.1 has in her evidence deposed that after the demise of her husband K.R.Janardhan Naidu, there was a partition between herself and her son Dhananjaya and it was agreed between them that Dhananjaya has to get the employment on compensatory ground and she would become member of the society and both agreed to submit no objection to get the membership in favour of defendant No.1 and to get employment to K.J.Dhananjaya at Bhadravathi and accordingly, Dhananjaya obtained job on compensatory ground and the defendant No.1 filed application before the society for enrollment as an association member and on 05.07.1999, the society informed that she has been admitted as a member of the society. Thereafter, as per the demand by the society, the defendant No.1 has paid Rs.21,360/- by way of demand draft dated 08.07.2004 and the amount is paid by the defendant No.1 out of her hard earned money. After receipt of the 50 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 demand draft, the society has issued the receipt and after fulfilling legal formalities has issued possession certificate on 05.01.2005 and thus, 'B' schedule property is the self-acquired property of defendant No.1 and the plaintiff has no manner of right, title or interest over the same and hence, she is not entitled for any share in the 'B' schedule property.
42. To corroborate the same, D.W.1 has relied upon Ex.D.6 which is the intimation given by the society dated 05.07.1999 which shows based on the application given by the defendant No.1 she is registered as associate member of society and Ex.D.8 is the receipt issued by the society which shows she has paid a sum of Rs.21,360/- to the society. Ex.D.7 is the possession certificate dated 05.01.2005 which shows possession is delivered on this day in favour of defendant No.1. Ex.D.9 and Ex.D.10 are the challans which shows the defendant No.1 has paid the tax to the 51 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 concerned authority. During cross-examination of D.W.1, she admits that in the sale deed, rectification deed and in the gift deed it is mentioned that the property was purchased by her husband and after she obtained the membership she got the property transferred to her name, but D.W.1 volunteers that sale deed was executed on 29.04.1995, but the property was not allotted and as such, she paid the amount as per Ex.D.8 and after payment the property was allotted in her favour. So this evidence of D.W.1 is corroborated with the documents relied upon by her.
43. So the evidence of D.W.1 coupled with the documents placed on record shows that, no doubt Janardhana Naidu was the earlier member of the society and suit 'B' schedule property was allotted to him and sale deed was executed as per Ex.P.1. As discussed earlier, it is a conditional sale deed and it was agreed by the member to pay the charges, as and 52 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 when demanded by the society. After the demise of Janardhana Naidu, the defendant No.1 has become the associate member of the society and as per the demand made by the society she has paid Rs.21,360/- as per Ex.D.8 and subsequent to that, possession certificate is issued in the name of defendant No.1 and rectification deed is also executed in favour of defendant No.1. So this shows Ex.P.1 was a nominal sale deed and subsequent to that the rectification deed is executed in the name of defendant No.1 and on payment of charges, possession of site is allotted to defendant No.1. So this shows the defendant No.1 was the absolute owner of the 'B' schedule property.
44. Hence at this point of time It is considered necessary to refer Sec.14 of Hindu Succession Act which reads as follows:
"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.53 O.S. No.565/2007 &
C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 Explanation.--In this sub-section, "property"
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."
45. In view of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, the property purchased in the name of defendant No.1 becomes her absolute property.
46. So she being the absolute owner has gifted the property in favour of her son and as such, the plaintiff has no right to seek share in the property. Added to this, as stated earlier, she has not challenged 54 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 the gift deed executed in favour of defendant No.2 and hence, even on this count the suit is not maintainable.
47. Now so far as suit 'A' & 'B' schedule properties are concerned, the learned counsel for defendant No.3 i.e. LIC of India in its arguments submits that, the defendant No.3 is unnecessarily arrayed as party to the suit and the claim of the suit is also bad in law and is bad for mis-joinder or non-joinder of necessary party and the suit brought without furnishing the details of the policies and the policies the obtained by the deceased are nominated in favour of defendant No.1 and one of the claim under the policies has been settled and the other two policies are very early claim and the corporation has to call for early claim requirements as to the genuineness of the claim and only after receipt of the satisfactory claim requirements the corporation can consider the claim under the two policies and in the light of the same, the suit brought without complying the said required 55 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 satisfactory requirements is highly premature and is not maintainable. Further, the defendant No.1 has received the policy money on behalf of legal heirs as she was registered nominee and does not mean the entire policy money belongs to her and this sought to dismiss the suit against the defendant No.3.
48. It is an admitted fact that, the schedule 'A' insurance policies were obtained by the Late. Dhananjaya during his life time and defendant No.1 was shown as nominee. It is evident from record that after his demise the defendant No.1 as a nominee and also as the legal heir of Late. Dhananjaya is alone entitled for the sum assured under the insurance policy. It is also relevant take note of the fact that, in view of the aforesaid issues, since the marriage of the plaintiff is annulled and she not being the legally wedded wife of Dhananjaya, she is not entitled to seek any share in 'A' to 'C' schedule properties and hence, this Court 56 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 proceeds to answer issues No.4 and 5 in the Affirmative and issue No.6 in the Negative.
49. ISSUE NO.7 IN O.S.565/2007 :: In view of the findings given on issues No.1 to 6 the plaintiff is not entitled for any of the reliefs claimed and hence, this issue is answered in the Negative.
50. ISSUES NO.6 AND 7 IN O.S. NO.7345/2010 ::
As per my findings on aforesaid issues it is established that, the marriage between the plaintiff and Late. Dhananjaya was not consummated. It is necessary to note that, the defendant No.1 is seeking for declaration that the marriage solemnized between her son and the plaintiff dated 31.05.2004 is null and void. So now the question that needs to be considered, as to whether defendant No.1 has locus-standi to challenge the validity of the marriage of plaintiff with her deceased son.
51. It is necessary to note that, only the parties to marriage can challenge the validity of the marriage. 57 O.S. No.565/2007 &
C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 Sec.13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act stipulates that either of the parties have to file the petition seeking annulment of marriage, in other words besides parties to the marriage, no third party can seek such a declaration with regard to the validity of the marriage. But in the instant suit one of the spouses is no more and declaration is sought by the mother of the deceased. So under such circumstances, the question that arises is as to the locus-standi of the defendant No.1 to challenge the validity of the marriage. Hence, at this point of time, this Court has referred to Sec.7 of the Family Courts Act and a bare reading of the said provision more particularly clause-B under the explanation is in the nature of a declaration as to the validity of the marriage and it makes it clear that, it should be filed by the parties to the marriage.
52. At this point of time, this Court has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay reported in (2021) 03 BOM 0011 wherein the Hon'ble 58 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 High Court while considering the rights of the third party seeking declaration as to the validity of the marriage of deceased spouse, by considering Sec.7 of the Family Courts Act has held that, " A third party acting as a legal heir had the locus to challenge the validity of the marriage". It is also necessary to take note of the fact that in the instant suit the question of right to inheritance is involved. So though one of the parties to the marriage is not alive, since the question of validity of marriage significantly impacts the legal heirs of the deceased, this Court is of opinion that, the defendant No.1 had the locus-standi to seek the annulment of marriage. Hence, issues No.6 and 7 is answered Partly in the Affirmative.
53. ADDITIONAL ISSUE IN O.S. NO.565/2007 ::
The defendant No.1 has in her evidence deposed that there was a family pension scheme for the employees of the Mysore Paper Mills where deceased Dhananjaya was working and after his death the family pension of 59 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 Rs.2,050/- is being given by the RPFC, Hubli for the livelihood of the dependents of Mr. Dhananjaya. The said family scheme is launched with good intention of providing financial help for the dependents of the deceased persons of the M.P.M. Ltd. The defendant with malafide intention to have all the benefits of the said family pension scheme had submitted false documents suppressing the name of defendant No.1 dependency on the deceased Dhananjaya in the office of RPFC, Hubli and has been getting the family pension of Rs.2,050/- p.m. from the said department in her individual name without giving any amount for the livelihood of the defendant. Recently from the reliable sources the defendant came to know that the plaintiff has received Rs.2,050/- as family pension after the death of the Sri. Dhananjaya and till date, to the calculation of the defendant, the plaintiff has received Rs.1,96,800/- from the said family pension scheme and till date she has not paid any amount for the livelihood 60 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 of the defendant. Moreover the plaintiff has suppressed the above said fact in her plaint. The defendant is also having equal rights over the same but due to the illegal act of the plaintiff the defendant has been deprived from getting the said benefit.
54. But it is necessary to note that, D.W. 1 has not produced the Family pension scheme launched by RPFC Hubli, so as to hold that the mother comes within the definition of "Family" and that she is entitled for the pension amount. Further no document is placed on record, to show that the pension is settled in favour of plaintiff and she is receiving the pension amount and the death benefits are released in her favour. So the defendant No1 cannot be held entitled for the pension amount. In view of my findings on aforesaid issues, the plaintiff is also not entitled for any pension from RPFC, Hubli.
55. Now so far as the death benefits are concerned, the defendant No.2 being the employer of 61 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 Late. Dhananjaya has in his written statement stated that the plaintiff has filed various suits in O.S. No.81/2005 on the file of Civil Judge at Sandoor and the present suit which is still pending for consideration and in view of the pendency of the suits, the terminal/ death benefits payable to LRs. of Late. Dhananjaya has been with held till final disposal of the suits.
56. As per my findings on aforesaid Issues, the marriage between the plaintiff and deceased Dhananjaya is annulled due to non-consummation and so the plaintiff is not entitled for the pension or the terminal or death benefits and so far as the defendant No.1 mother is concerned, she would come within the definition of family as defined under Rule 302 of Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct) Rules. So under such circumstances, the entire death benefits has to released in defendant No.1. Accordingly, the said additional issue is answered Partly in the Affirmative. 62 O.S. No.565/2007 &
C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010
57. In view of findings on issues and additional issue, this Court proceeds to pass the following;
ORDER Suit bearing O.S. No.565/2007 is dismissed.
Suit bearing O.S. No.7345/2010 is decreed in part.
It is hereby declared that the marriage between Sri. K.J.Dhananjaya and defendant No.1 is null and void.
It is further declared that in view of annulment of marriage, the defendant No.1 is not entitled to receive death benefits and pension amount and Life Insurance policy benefits of K.J.Dhananjaya.
Both parties shall bear the cost of the suit.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcription corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 04th day of August, 2025).
(Keep the original judgment in O.S. No.565/2007 and copy of the same in O.S. No.7345/2010).
(VEENA N.) XL Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
63 O.S. No.565/2007 &C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 A NNEXURES IN BOTH THE SUITS I. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF :
(A) PLAINTIFF SIDE ::
P.W.1 :: Smt. Tulasi B @ Shakunthala (B) DEFENDANTS SIDE :: D.W.1 :: Smt. Lalitha
II. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF:
(A) PLAINTIFF SIDE ::
Ex.P.1 :: Family pedigree
Ex.P.2 :: Certified copy of sale deed dated
29.04.1995
Ex.P.3 :: Certified copy of rectification deed dated
09.12.2005
Ex.P.4 :: Encumbrance Certificate
Ex.P.5 & :: Endorsements issued by B.D.A.
Ex.P.6
Ex.P.7 :: Certified copy of Khata Certificate issued by
B.D.A.
Ex.P.8 :: Certified copy of the Canara bank of
remittance challan/ receipt dated
11.01.2007
Ex.P.9 :: Invitation card
Ex.P.10 :: Death of K.J.Dhananjaya
Ex.P.11 :: Copy of legal notice dated 10.09.2004
issued to the Manager, LIC of India,
Bhadravathi Branch
64 O.S. No.565/2007 &
C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010
Ex.P.12 :: Postal acknowledgment of LIC of India
Ex.P.13 :: Copy of another notice
Ex.P.14 :: Copy of legal notice to defendant No.1
Ex.P.15 & :: Notice was sent by courier service to
Ex.P.16 defendant No.1 and they are returned and
unserved postal covers
Ex.P.17 :: Certified copy of plaint in O.S. No.134/2007
Ex.P.18 :: Certified copy of written statement filed by
defendant
Ex.P.19 :: Certified copy of written statement filed
defendant No.2
Ex.P.20 :: Certified copy of written statement filed by
defendant No.3
Ex.P.21 :: Certified copy of I.A. No.2 filed in the said
suit
Ex.P.22 :: Certified copy of order passed on I.A. No.2
dated 10.09.2009
Ex.P.23 :: Certified copy of order dated 30.10.2009 in
CRP No.4587/2009
Ex.P.24 :: Certified copy of the order passed in Misc.
Civil. Petition No.22243/2009
Ex.P.25 :: Certified copy of the registered gift deed
dated 29.01.2008
Ex.P.26 :: Certified copy of assessment register
extract of the suit schedule property Ex.P.27 :: Encumbrance Certificate 65 O.S. No.565/2007 & C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010 Ex.P.28 :: On 29.08.2004 there was an understanding between P.W.1 and her mother-in-law defendant No.1 for the purpose of saving their properties and it was reduced into writing copy (B) DEFENDANTS SIDE ::
Ex.D.1 :: Certified copy of death note containing 5 sheets Ex.D.2 :: Certified copy of complaint lodged with Bhadravathi Town police Ex.D.3 :: Copy of UDR No.10/2004 and connected papers (intimation, inquest, statements) Ex.D.4 :: Endorsement given by Bhadravathi Town police Ex.D.5 :: Letter issued by Canara bank Ex.D.6 Membership certificate dated 05.07.1999 issued by Mysore Paper Mills Employees House Building Co-operative Society Ex.D.7 :: Possession certificate dated 05.01.2005 Ex.D.8 :: Original receipt Ex.D.9 & :: 2 original challans Ex.D.10 (VEENA N.) XL Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.66 O.S. No.565/2007 &
C/w. O.S. No.7345/2010