IMPORTANT POINT
Legal heirs – Hindu female died intestate – Merely because name of mother of deceased was mentioned as nominee, she is not entitled for terminal benefits or for insurance amount as she is mother of deceased – Deceased has husband and son after marriage who are legal heirs.

JUDGMENT

P. Sree Sudha, J.—This City Civil Court Appeal is filed against the Judgment and decree dated 25.04.2022 in O.S.No.634 of 2013, passed by the learned III-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. O.S.No.634 of 2013 was filed by the plaintiff No.1/husband along with plaintiff No.2/son against the Banks in which his wife Veena Kumari has taken loans and also against the mother of Veena Kumari i.e, defendant No.3 and after her death her legal representatives brought on record i.e, defendants No.4 to 6.

3. The trial Court examined P.Ws.1 & 2 on behalf of the plaintiffs and marked Exs.A1 to A18. The son of defendant No.3 was examined as D.W.1 and marked Exs.B1 to B4 on behalf of defendants.

4. The trial Court after considering the entire oral and documentary evidence, decreed the Suit in favour of plaintiffs and declared them as legal heirs and successors of deceased Veena Kumari under Section 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and stated that they shall inherit all her assets and liabilities shown in the suit schedule property. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the present appeal is preferred by the legal representatives of the defendant No.3, as she died during the pendency of the proceedings.

5. Appellants/defendants No.3 to 6 mainly contended that respondents No.1 & 2/plaintiffs are not entitled for any benefits of deceased Veena Kumari as legal heirs, as their mother T.S.Mahalaxmi was the nominee of the deceased. Their mother/D3 filed O.S.No.4398 of 2008 for injunction against the respondent No.1 and the same was decreed on 03.03.2011, as there was no appeal preferred against it, it became final. The deceased Veena Kumari permitted defendant No.3 as her nominee till her death. Though her name was shown as the nominee prior to her marriage, she has not changed the name of the first plaintiff as nominee, as she has no faith on her husband. The respondent No.1 married another woman after the death of Veena Kumari. The respondents No.1 & 2 earlier filed a suit in O.S.No.1855 of 2013 against their mother and the same was dismissed on contest on 23.10.2018, as the respondents No.1&2 claimed the same relief which was claimed by them in O.S.No.634 of 2013. The citations filed by them in favour of the nominee were not considered by the trial Court. They further stated that the respondent No.2 was examined as P.W.2, but he was never examined. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

6. A simple Suit was filed by the respondents No.1 & 2/plaintiffs to declare them as the legal heirs of the deceased Veena Kumari, but the mother of Veena Kumari contested all the matters and there were several cases between the parties and thus not only relationship between the plaintiffs and defendant No.3 was strange, but there was considerable amount of litigation between the parties, as such it is required for this Court to mention all the details for arriving to proper conclusion.

7. The marriage of plaintiff No.1 with Veena Kumari was performed on 26.04.1992 and they are blessed with a son i.e, plaintiff No.2, but Veena Kumari died intestate on 30.08.2008. He filed her death certificate to show that she died due to acute coronary insufficiency. The deceased Veena Kumari was worked as Assistant Manager in State Bank of Hyderabad. Even prior to her marriage, she was in service, but during her service, she has taken several loans nearly 10 different types of loans as detailed in the plaint. The loans were provided to her under different account numbers. Apart from that she has also taken two housing loans from Chikkadpally Branch of State Bank of Hyderabad. The defendant No.1 is the State Bank of Hyderabad, Chikkadpally and it is working under the Head Office i.e, defendant No.2. In letter dated 29.12.2008, the details of loans taken by her was mentioned and in the letter dated 23.12.2008, details of the housing loans provided to her were mentioned. She has taken housing