Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 1787
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
S.G. PANDIT, J.
SHIVANAGOUDA S/O VENKANAGOUDA PATIL - PETITIONER
Versus
MITRAGOUDA S/O BHIMANAGOUDA PATIL - RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION NO.116535/2019 (GM-CPC)
Decided On : 19-02-2020
For the Appellant : SRI. MALLIKARJUN S HIREMATH & SRI. R.M. PATIL, ADVS.
The court emphasized the need to determine the right of the petitioners over the policy amount and the requirement for the nominee to provide the Will on the basis of which he received the policy amount.
Headnote:
Maintainability - Succession Certificate - The court upheld the rejection of the application to hear the petition on maintainability, stating that the issue of whether the petitioners have any right over the policy amount is to be decided, and the nominee must provide the Will on the basis of which he received the policy amount.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner/respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 151 of CPC to hear the petition on maintainability, claiming to be the nominee and having received the entire amount under the policy in question. The trial Court rejected the application, leading to the petitioner's appeal to the higher court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial Court had rightly rejected the application, as the issue of the petitioners' right over the policy amount needed to be decided, and the nominee had to provide the Will on the basis of which he received the policy amount.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the petition in relation to the issuance of a succession certificate for an LIC policy amount, with the petitioner claiming to be the nominee and having received the policy amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the determination that the issue of the petitioners' right over the policy amount needed to be resolved, and the nominee had to provide the Will on the basis of which he received the policy amount.
Final Decision: The writ petition was rejected, and the rejection of the application to hear the petition on maintainability was upheld.
ORDER :
1. The petitioner is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 13.8.2019 passed on IA No.5 in P & SC No.1/2017 on the file of the IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad.
2. The petitioner is the respondent No.1 and respondents 1 to 3 are the petitioners in P & SC No.1/2017 filed for issuance of succession certificate in respect of maturity amount of LIC policy bearing No.638631501, for a sum of Rs.9,97,722/-and other relief. The petitioner/respondent No.1 on appearance filed an application under Section 151 of CPC to hear the petition on maintainability stating that as per Will, he is the beneficiary and he had already received the policy amount. The said application was opposed by the petitioners by filing objections. The trial Court under the impugned order rejected the application of the petitioner/respondent No.1. Hence, he is before this Court.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the writ petition papers.
4. P & SC No.1/2017 is filed praying for issue of succession certificate in respect of maturity amount of LIC policy bearing No.638631501 i.e. an amount of Rs.9,97,722/-in favour of the petitioners and to direct the respondent No.1 to pay LIC Policy No.638631501, amount of Rs.9,97,722/-to the petitioners.
5. It is submitted that out of the compensation amount received from the KIADB, certain amounts were invested in LIC policies and said policies were belonging to late Bhimanagouda Venkanagouda Patil. In one of the policies, respondent No.1 was made as nominee but it is the amount of joint family. As such, the petitioners/respondents 1 to 3 herein had filed petition for issuance of succession certificate in respect of the LIC policy bearing No. 638631501.
6. The petitioner/respondent No.1 had filed IA No.5 to hear the petition on maintainability on the ground that he is nominee and he received entire amount under the policy which is in question. As rightly held by the trial Court, merely because, the petitioner/respondent No.1 received the claim amount under the policy in question, it cannot be contended that the petition is not maintainable. The trial Court on the material on record had come to the conclusion that whether the petitioners in P & SC No.1/2017 have any right over the policy amount is to be decided. The respondents 1 to 3 herein claim that they are the only legal representatives of late Bhimanagouda Patil who had invested the amount in LIC Policies. Moreover, the petitioner/respondent No.1 has to place on record Will on the basis of which he received the policy amount.
Hence, I am of the view that the trial Court has rightly rejected the application IA No.5 filed by the petitioner find no error in the order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected.
