Karnataka High Court
Sri N Prathap Babu Rao vs The Assistant Provident Fund ... on 9 September, 2025
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:35542
MFA No. 3856 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3856 OF 2022 (ISA)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI N. PRATHAP BABU RAO
S/O LATE U NARASINGA RAO
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.9-7-680/390
MATHA PITRU KRUPA 2ND CROSS
B T PATILNAGAR, KOPPAL-583 231.
2. SRI M. SATHYA NARAYANA RAO
S/O LATE U NARASINGA RAO
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.29/19, GURU KRUPA
GANESH TEMPLE STREET
NEAR RADIO PARK, COWL BAZAAR
BELLARY -583102.
Digitally 3. MISS. N SAVITHRI BAI
signed by
RAMYA D D/O LATE U. NARASINGA RAO
Location: AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
HIGH
COURT OF R/AT NO.1346, 1ST FLOOR
KARNATAKA 26TH MAIN, 24TH CROSS,
NEAR BDA COMPLEX
BSK 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 070.
4. SRI NARASINGA RAO RAMESH
S/O LATE U. NARASINGA RAO
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT DOOR NO.803, VENKATESH
SERENITY, NEAR DSK VISWA DHAYRI
GAON, PUNE-411 041.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:35542
MFA No. 3856 of 2022
HC-KAR
5. DR. N. GAYATHRI BAI
D/O LATE U. NARASINGA RAO
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT NO.51/52, SAVITHA
RESIDENCY, 1ST CROSS
BANAJIRINAGAR, BSK 3RD STAGE
BENGALURU-560 070.
6. MISS. N. ANURADHA
D/O LATE U. NARASINGA RAO
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
7. SRI N. RAGHAVENDRA MURTHY
S/O LATE U. NARASINGA RAO
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
APPELLANT NOS.6 AND 7 ARE
R/AT NO.1346, 1ST FLOOR
26TH MAIN, 24TH CROSS
NEAR BDA COMPLEX
BSK 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 070.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SUDHAKAR G.V., ADVOCATE AND
SRI. LOKESH L.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
SUB-REGIONAL OFFICE, PEENYA
NO.62, 1ST MAIN, MEI ROAD
3RD CROSS, INDUSTRIAL SUBRUB,
YESHWANTHAPURA 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 002.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SARAVANA P., ADVOCATE AND
SMT. NANDITA HALDIPUR, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 384 OF INDIAN
SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED
21.03.2022 PASSED IN P AND S.C.NO.191/2020 ON THE FILE
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:35542
MFA No. 3856 of 2022
HC-KAR
OF THE LXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU (CCH-65), DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED
UNDER SECTION 372 OF INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
The petitioners have preferred this appeal calling in question the order dated 21.03.2022 passed by theLXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in P&SC No.191/2020, thereby, the petition filed is dismissed for the reason that the appellants/petitioners have not produced documents showing the petitioners' are made as nominees.
2. The appellants/petitioners claiming to be the legal heirs of deceased N.Srinivas Murthy who was serving as Research Assistant in Kemwell Biopharma Private Ltd. (now company named as 'Recipharma Pharma Service Private Ltd.,') and is a subscriber of family pension. It is stated that the said deceased N.Srinivas Murthy died unmarried. Therefore, the petitioners being Class-II legal -4- NC: 2025:KHC:35542 MFA No. 3856 of 2022 HC-KAR heirs have filed petition under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short 'the Act') for issuance of succession certificate in favour of petitioner No.3 as other petitioners have stated no objection to release family pension to the petitioner No.3/appellant No.3.
3. The District Court has dismissed the petition on the reason that the petitioners have not produced any evidence to show that one of the petitioners was made as nominee for family pension. Therefore, on this reason the petition was dismissed.
4. Being aggrieved by this the petitioners have preferred the present appeal and the learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners has submitted that now in the appeal the appellants have produced additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC by showing the appellant No.3 is made as nominee to receive the family pension. Therefore, this met with the requirements to release the family pension. Hence, prays to allow the appeal. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:35542 MFA No. 3856 of 2022 HC-KAR
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/authorities submitted that before the trial court there is no evidence produced showing the nominee. Hence, justified the order passed by the District Court.
6. Upon hearing the learned counsels for both parties the following points arise for consideration:
(i) Whether under the facts and circumstances involved in the case the appellants/petitioners are entitled for issuance of Succession Certificate?
(ii) Whether under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the order passed by the District Court requires interference by this Court?
7. The appellants are claiming to be the legal heirs of deceased N.Srinivas Murthy, who died unmarried while he was working as Research Assistant in the above stated firm. Therefore, filed petition for claiming a benefit of family pension made by the deceased. -6-
NC: 2025:KHC:35542 MFA No. 3856 of 2022 HC-KAR
8. The District Court has dismissed the petition on the reason that there is no evidence regarding nomination being made and as per Section 2(g) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, under the definition of 'family' only husband, wife and children are considered as a 'family' and therefore, as per Section 2(g) definition the appellants are not coming within the definition of family. Therefore, rejected the application filed by the petitioners.
9. There is no rival claim by the respondent/authority that the appellants/petitioners are not legal heirs of the deceased. Making nomination is for the purpose of release/disburse the benefit of scheme to the legal heirs/nominees without the authority withholding the said benefits. Therefore, making nomination is primarily for releasing the benefits made by the deceased. Though the appellants may not be the Class-I legal heirs, but being brothers/sisters of the deceased are Class-II -7- NC: 2025:KHC:35542 MFA No. 3856 of 2022 HC-KAR legal heirs as per the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
10. The appellants have produced an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC for production of additional documents in which the appellant No.3 is shown as nominee. It is stated that other appellants does not have objection for the appellant No.3 to get the benefit of family pension on account of death of the deceased N.Srinivasa Murthy. Therefore, this additional documentary evidence is considered and is allowed and it is held that the appellants have proved that the appellant No.3 is made as nominee in the family pension benefit scheme. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, I answer Point Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative.
11. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed.-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:35542 MFA No. 3856 of 2022 HC-KAR
(ii) The order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the LXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in P&SC No.191/2020, is set aside.
(iii) Issue Succession Certificate to the appellant No.3 and respondent/authority is directed to release/disburse the family pension to the appellant No.3.
(iv) The appellant No.3 is entitled to receive the family pension from the respondent/authority as per law.
SD/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE DR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43