Karnataka High Court
Smt. Anuradha L vs Smt. Bramaramba on 15 December, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:53137-DB
RFA No. 1584 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1584 OF 2018 (MON)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. ANURADHA.L
W/O. LATE. VISHWANATH,
R/AT GENERAL BODY 44,
6TH CROSS, HAL OLD TOWNSHIP,
VIMANAPURA, HAL QUARTERS,
BENGALURU 560 050.
2. KUM. DHRITI VISHWANATH
D/O. LATE. VISHWANATH,
SINCE MINOR REP BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL
GUARDIAN SMT.ANURADHA, R/AT GENERAL BODY
44, 6TH CROSS, HAL OLD TOWNSHIP, VIMANAPURA,
HAL QUARTERS, BENGALURU 560 050.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.B.RAMESH., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. BRAMARAMBA
W/O. LATE. NAGARAJ.A.C.,
SINCE DIED ON 26.06.2022
R2 IS LEGAL HEIRS OF R1 &
APPELLANT-1 ARE THE DAUGHTER IN LAW
AND APPELLANT NO.2 IS THE GRAND DAUGHTER
OF DECEASED R1,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:53137-DB
RFA No. 1584 of 2018
HC-KAR
SRI.C.NAGARAJA,
H/O. BRAMARAMBA,
SINCE DECEASED REP BY HIS LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE,
2. SRI.SHIVA KUMAR,
S/O. LATE. C NAGARAJA,
R/AT NO. 751, 5TH CROSS, 9TH-B-MAIN, HAMPI
NAGAR, VIJAYANAGAR, II STAGE,
BENGLAURLU 560 040.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PAVAN KUMAR.N., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K.L.SRINIVASA., ADVOCATE FOR R2
R1-SERVED)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.01.2018
PASSED IN O.S.NO.2668/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XX
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
CITY, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU)
1. The present appeal seeks to challenge an order dated 01.01.2018 in O.S.No.2668/2014 passed by the XX Additional City Civil Jude (CCH-32) at Bangalore -3- NC: 2025:KHC:53137-DB RFA No. 1584 of 2018 HC-KAR [hereinafter referred to as the "Impugned Order"]. By the Impugned Order, the petition filed by the appellants/plaintiffs has been dismissed.
2. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs in the year 2014 for recovery of money. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff No.1 was married to the deceased N.Vishwanath on 19.12.2009, and that her husband, N.Vishwanath died in a road accident on 07.04.2011, leaving behind the plaintiffs, it was contended that during his lifetime, the deceased had taken out insurance policies and had invested money in various financial institutions. However, after the demise of the deceased, when the appellants/plaintiffs approached the concerned authorities for settlement of the insurance claims, they were informed that the respondents/defendants had already withdrawn the said amounts. Thus, the suit for recovery in a sum of Rs.19,08,622.33 was filed.
3. The suit was contested by the respondents/defendants. It was denied that any amounts had been received from -4- NC: 2025:KHC:53137-DB RFA No. 1584 of 2018 HC-KAR the claim of the LIC policies. It was further contended by the respondent/defendant that after the death of the deceased, the amounts sanctioned by the company, where the deceased was employed, was already received, partly by the respondents/defendants and partly by the plaintiffs. The respondents/defendants stated that a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- had already been received by the appellants/plaintiffs being 50% of the amount available.
4. In addition, it was also averred by the respondents/defendants that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had also awarded compensation out of which a sum of Rs.17,95,190/- was awarded to the appellants/plaintiffs.
5. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court:
"1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled for terminal benefits and also life insurance policy amount after demise of N. Vishwanath being a class-1 heirs of deceased?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the suit claim?-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:53137-DB RFA No. 1584 of 2018 HC-KAR
3. What order or decree?"
6. The question that arises for determination by this Court is whether the learned Trial Court erred concluding that the defendant and her husband had not received the amount from LIC.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs contends that the learned Trial Court has erred in its findings and has ignored the documentary evidence marked as Exhibits P5, P6, P10 and P11. It is stated that these documents would show that the amounts have been credited to the defendants and therefore, the appellants/plaintiffs are entitled to a share in the said amounts as per law.
8. The learned Trial Court examined these documents and found that DW-1 had categorically denied having received any amount from LIC. It was further found that the Exhibit P5, which was relied upon by the appellants/plaintiffs, does not contain a cheque number and also is not signed. The learned Trial Court further noted that DW-1 denied the appellants/plaintiffs are -6- NC: 2025:KHC:53137-DB RFA No. 1584 of 2018 HC-KAR entitled to any share on the ground that the deceased N. Vishwanath had nominated her as the nominee. 8.1 It is apposite to set out the relevant extract of the Impugned Order in this regard below "Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that since this is a suit filed by the plaintiffs for recovery of money as if the defendants have received money from LIC, but, when the defendants have categorically stated that they have not received money from LIC, under such circumstances, filing of suit against the defendants does not arise at all. Therefore, I am of the considered view that if the plaintiffs are entitled any share in the amount as nominees, they are at liberty to move the application before the concerned authorities for claiming the amount. Accordingly, I answer issue No.1 and 2 in the Negative".
[Emphasis supplied]
9. We have examined the Exs.P5, P6, P10 and P11. These exhibits are a cyclostyled forms with no signatures and receipts which do not evidence payment to any person.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:53137-DB RFA No. 1584 of 2018 HC-KAR
10. In addition, the Respondent No.1 (DW-1) has in her evidence set out that the several amounts have been taken by the appellants/plaintiffs to the exclusion of the respondents/defendants:
"1. I submit that, deceased N.Vishwanath was working at Tata Consultancy Services and the Company has insured vishwanath's Group Insurance Policy as he was an employee of the TCS Company during his life time. Due to the sudden and tragic demise in an accident deceased Vishwanath covered under the said policy. The insurance company has sanctioned Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Only) in full and final settlement of the claims made on his behalf. I am being the class-1 heir and being the shareholder of 50%, has claimed Rs.9,00,000/-(Rupees Nine Lakh Only) out of Rs.18,00,000/-. The plaintiff No.1 has every right to withdraw another Rs. 9,00,000/- from the Tata Consultancy Services Ltd and I have no objection and will not interfere in any manner. The plaintiff No.2 is not emitted to any share in this policy as deceased Vishwanath has nominated to me and 1st plaintiff only after the birth of 2nd plaintiff. I submit that neither myself nor my deceased husband never received policy amount as alleged by the plaintiffs.
2. I submit that in the year 2008 deceased Vishwanath requested me to render a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for investment in land near Ramanagar and Channapatana. I have borrowed a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- form Divya Jyothi Credit Co-operative Society Limited on 29.12.2008, by depositing title deeds of site situated at Nagadevanahalli, Bangalore. The developer who has formed the layout was withdrawn from its owner due to litigation Accordingly deceased Vishwanath also received the amount from the developer. Thereafter, plaintiff and deceased Vishwanath both together have invested in some other land. After the demise of vishwanath the plaintiff herein not bother to pay loan amount. I submit that, after receiving the amount form TCS company Rs.9,00,000/-dated 31/01/2012, I have -8- NC: 2025:KHC:53137-DB RFA No. 1584 of 2018 HC-KAR deposited Rs.5,00,000/- to the Divya Jyothi Credit Co-operative Society Limited on 24/03/2012 and obtained Discharge Deed on 26/03/2012.
3. I submit that Vishwanath has deposited money in chit Fund in Mysore Sales International Ltd (MSIL) for sum of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakh only) and another chit fund by name Bajaj Alliance chit fund at Malleshwaram, Bangalore, for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakh only) The plaintiff No.1 immediately after demise of Vishwanath withdrawn whole amount without my knowledge.
4. I submit that deceased Vishwanath has Deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) in Tumkur Grain Merchants Co-Operative Bank Ltd as FIXED DEPOSIT for a period of 1 year 1 month with 7% interest, vide FDR.No.30300860972, dated 9/11/2010 and its due date was 5/12/2011. Deceased Vishwanath met with an accident on 7/4/2011. The 1st plaintiff herein is the nominee, and she has withdrawn entire amount with interest thereon by depriving my rights in the said fixed deposit.......
10.1 The respondent No. 1 /defendant No. 1 has in her cross -examination categorically denied receiving any payment from LIC in the following terms:
"I have not received any amount from the LIC. I do not know whether the LIC policies have taken by my son prior to his marriage or not. Even I do not know whether my son has nominated me and my husband as a nominees to the policies or not. It is false to suggest that after the death of my son myself and my husband have taken the money from the LIC. It is false to suggest that behind the back plaintiff we have withdrawn the amount.
I do not know whether my son had SB account at ICICI Bank or not. It is false to suggest that we have withdrawn the amount from the said account. The site -9- NC: 2025:KHC:53137-DB RFA No. 1584 of 2018 HC-KAR situated at Nagarbhavi was mortgaged and availed a loan of Rs.5 lakhs and the amount was paid to my son but I do not remember the date. I have paid Rs.5 lakhs by way of cash. It is false to suggest that I have not paid any amount to my son. It is false to suggest that I am deposing false that my has withdrawn the amount from the Society. It is false to suggest that I am deposing false that the two wheeler and car have retained by the plaintiff.
There was an award passed by the MVC tribunal but we have not withdrawn the amount. Now plaintiff no.1 is not doing any job. Plaintiff no.2 was taken care of plaintiff no.1 after the death of my son. It is false to suggest that the plaintiffs are entitled share in the amount received by us".
[Emphasis supplied]
11. The learned Trial Court has categorically recorded that, in view of the respondents/defendants' denial of the receipt of the money and the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the suit was dismissed.
12. The learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs has been unable to place before this Court any document or any evidence on the basis of which findings of the learned Trial Court can be interfered with. The documents which have been exhibited have been placed before this Court have been examined by the learned Trial Court to reach its findings.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53137-DB RFA No. 1584 of 2018 HC-KAR
13. It is also not disputed by the appellant that no officer of the LIC was examined to prove the factum of payment made nor was any independent evidence adduced to establish that the amounts were, in fact, paid to the respondents/defendants.
14. In view of the aforegoing, this Court is not inclined to interdict the Impugned Order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand closed.
15. It is however clarified that this dismissal shall not preclude the appellants/plaintiffs from filing an appropriate application before the concerned authorities for claiming any amounts due. Any such application, if filed, shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
Digitally signed byDINESH KUMAR SINGH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA
(D K SINGH) JUDGE Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE TIN/SNB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11