SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Kar) 257

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.P.SANDESH, J.
Smt. Mangamma W/o. Late Krishnappa – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sridevi B. W/o. Late Tulasi Kumar M. @ Tulasi Kumar Melupaka – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 222 of 2023 (IO)
Decided on : 15-06-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI R. SUBRAMANYA , ADVOCATE FOR SRI VARUN R.R., ADVOCATE
For the Respondent: SRI C.H. RAMACHANDRA REDDY

Point of Law: Section 371 of Act reads as court having jurisdiction to grant certificate.

Headnote:

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 7, Rule 11(a) and (d), Section 151, 19, 20 - Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 372, 371 - Grant an order of succession certificate - Claim death benefits - Petitioners praying Court to grant an order of succession certificate in their favour that they are entitled for 2/3rd share in death benefits – Petitioners came to know that respondents have fraudulently got released entire death benefit from respondent No.5 depriving rights and share of petitioners over same - Para 22.

Finding of the Court: Respondents have specifically pleaded in petition itself with regard to cause of action since, very contention is that no cause of action has arisen before Court and contention cannot be accepted, it is categorically stated with regard to fact that cause of action arose when petitioners came to know that respondents have fraudulently got released entire death benefit of late Tulasi Kumar M. from respondent No.5 depriving rights and share of petitioners over same - It is very clear that movable property which is held by respondent No.5 was disbursed in Bengaluru and when petitioners questioned same, respondent No.5 has directed petitioners to obtain order from Court - Legal notice was issued to petitioners and also respondent No.5 - When such clear pleading is made in plaint with regard to cause of action and apart from that, details are also given in plaint with regard to cause of action to claim death benefits of husband of respondent No.1 - It is also settled law that Court has to look into averments of plaint while considering application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) and (d) read with Section 151 of C.P.C. and not defence of petitioners – Court do not find any merit in petition.

Result: Petition dismissed.

ORDER :

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. In this revision petition, the revision petitioners have assailed the order passed by the Trial Court dated 14.03.2023 passed on I.A.No.4 filed under Order 7, Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 of C.P.C. in P and S.C. No.26/2022 dismissing the application.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the petitioners before the Trial Court in P and S.C.No.26/2022 is that the petitioners had filed a petition under Section 372 Indian Succession Act, 1925 (‘the Act’ for short) praying the Court to grant an order of succession certificate in their favour that they are entitled for 2/3rd share in the death benefits i.e., GPF, PF etc., of Late Tulasi Kumar M. which amounts to Rs.11,33,332/-which is jointly and severally payable by the respondents Nos.1 and 5.

4. It is contended in the petition that the petitioners are the wife and daughter of deceased Tulasi Kumar M., who is gainfully employed with the respondent No.5-company and came to know that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 have fraudulently obtained the death benefits of Late Tulasi Kumar M. Hence, they filed the petition.

5. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 i.e., the petitioners herein have filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) and (d) read with Section 151 of C.P.C. praying the Court to reject the plaint, as it is without any cause of action and as such, being barred by law. In support of the application, an averment is also made that the petition is completely silent about how cause of action arose on 25.01.2022 and on 28.03.2022 and it is contended that the deceased is a permanent employee of Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh and the same does not comply with Section 371 of the Act and also hit by Section 20 of the C.P.C. and prayed the Court to reject the plaint.

6. This application is resisted by the respondents by filing statement of objection contending that, it is an admitted fact that the deceased was staying and working in Bengaluru and the death certificate also clearly discloses that he died in Bengaluru and when he was gainfully employed in Bengaluru, the very contention that there is no jurisdiction and cause of action and the same is barred by law cannot be accepted. It is contended that, though the deceased was a resident of Andhra Pradesh, but he was resident of Konadasapura, Virgonagar Post, Bengaluru East Taluk and the same is also reported by the police in UDR case and the death certificate also discloses the place of death of deceased as Konadasapura, Virgonagar Post, Bengaluru East Taluk and the deceased was employed in Aditya Birla Branch office of respondent No.5 and the respondent No.5 is also having its business in Bengaluru. Hence, the very contention of the petitioners cannot be accepted.

7. The Trial Court, having considered the grounds urged in the application and also statement of objection and having extracted Sections 19 and 20 of C.P.C., the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the claim is in respect of the movables of the deceased and the deceased was also gainfully employed in Bengaluru and respondent No.5-compnay is also carrying business in Bengaluru. Hence, issuance of succession certificate is in respect of death benefits of late Tulasi Kumar M. is not hit by Sections 19 and 20 of C.P.C. and therefore, the very contention that no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the same cannot be accepted and application filed has to be rejected.

8. Being aggrieved by the said order, this revision petition is filed. The counsel for the petitioners would vehemently contend that, when the petition is filed under Section 372 of the Act, the Trial Court ought to have taken note of Section 371 of the Act and the same has not been discussed in the order and instead, erroneously passed an order invoking Sections 19 and 20 of C.P.C. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court Section 371 of the Act with regard to the Court having jurisdiction to grant succession certific

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
        whatsapp-icon Back to top