Point of Law: Under Section 16 of Hindu Succession Act, children born from both of his wives would be entitled to succeed to retiral benefits in equal shares.

ORDER :

1. These two revision petitions are filed by the petitioners in P&SC No.21/2003 challenging the common judgment passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM at Shivamogga, dated 20.12.2008, insofar as it relates to allotting only equal share in the death benefits of deceased Narasimhamurthy and also being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Principal District Judge, Shivamogga in P&SC Appeal No.2/2012, wherein the First Appellate Court by setting aside the judgment passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM at Shivamogga in P&SC No.21/2003 and allowing the appeal filed by the respondent in P&SC Appeal No.1/2012 dated 5.2.2016, preferred these two revision petitions.

2. The factual matrix of case of the petitioners in P&SC No.21/2003 that the first petitioner is the wife of Narasimhamurthy and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the children of Narasimhamurthy and petitioners in P&SC No.27/2003 first petitioner claims that she is the wife of Narasimhamurthy and second petitioner is the son of Narasimhamurthy and having perused the pleadings of both the P&SC Nos.21 and 27 of 2003 claims that they are the wife and children of Narasimhamurthy. The petitioners in P&SC No.21/2003 examined the first petitioner as PW1 before the trial Court and got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P34 and petitioners in P&SC No.27/2003 examined the first petitioner as RW1 and also examined one witness as RW2 and got marked document Exs.R1 to R18. The trial Court having appreciated both oral and documentary evidence allowed P&SC No.21/2003 and petition filed by the petitioners in P&SC No.27/2003 is rejected. However, held that petitioner Nos.1 to 3 in P&SC No.21/2003 and petitioner No.2 in P&SC No.27/2003 are entitled to equal share in the service benefits of deceased Narasimhamurthy and they are entitled to succession certificate and also ordered that petitioner No.1 i.e. Smt.Shakuntala is entitled to claim the appointment on compassionate ground on behalf of the death of Narasimhamurthy, as she is his nearest legal heir. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, the petitioner in P&SC No.27/2003 filed two appeals. The same is numbered as P&SC Appeal No.1 and 2 of 2012 i.e. second petitioner in P&SC No.27/2003, since the first petitioner was no more and in both the appeals, the petitioners in P&SC No.21/2003 are the respondents and Zilla Panchayath also made as respondent No.4 in P&SC Appeal No.2/2012 and KGID as respondent No.5. The first appellate Court on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence comes to the conclusion that the first petitioner in P&SC No.27/2003 is the wife and second petitioner is the son and hence the appeal filed by said Nutan Kumar is allowed and counter appeal filed by the contesting respondent Nos.1 to 3 is rejected. Consequently, P&SC No.27/2003 is partly allowed and P&SC No.21/2003 is rejected and hence, these two revision petitions are filed by the petitioners challenging the orders.

3. The main contention in Civil Revision Petition No.138/2016 is that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court had committed an error in passing an order and particularly trial Court committed an error in coming to the conclusion that said Nutan Kumar is also entitled for a share in the service benefits of Narasimhamurthy and first appellate Court committed an error in reversing the finding of the trial Court and rejecting the claim made by the revision petitioners herein.

4. The main contention of the counsel that Smt.Lakshmi who claims that her marriage was solemnized in the year 1979 and Nutan Kumar was born on 4.9.1981, no documents have been produced before the trial Court and first appellate Court also failed to take note of Ex.R10, which is the self attested document of Smt.Lakshmi and by careful perusal of the said document, it seems that the said document is issued by the food and civil supplies authorities during the year 1998 and the name of the first respondent has been included