The Lok Adalat award is binding and final, preventing parties from contesting legal heirship claims based on prior disputes once a settlement is reached.

JUDGMENT :

(RENUKA YARA, J.)

Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel for the appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 3, Smt. Vani Kandarpa, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff and Sri A. Radha Krishna, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4/defendant Nos.4 to 6.

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 3 aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge at Khammam, dated 05.12.2018 in O.S.No.174 of 2012, whereby the suit filed for declaring respondent No.1/plaintiff as legal heir of Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar has been decreed. Further, decreed that respondent No.1/plaintiff is entitled for the death benefits and directed respondent Nos.2 to 4/defendant Nos.4 to 6 to release the death benefits of Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar in favour of respondent No.1/plaintiff.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to as they are arrayed in O.S.No.174 of 2012.

Facts of the case:

4. Defendant No.1 is the 1^st wife and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the children of Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar. Defendant No.1 was married to Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar on 14.03.1982 and defendant Nos.2 and 3 were born on 25.04.1985 and 11.06.1990 respectively. Due to disputes, defendant No.1 filed M.C.No.42 of 1991 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C seeking maintenance. While so, Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar filed O.P.No.74 of 1995 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bheemavaram seeking dissolution of marriage. The said O.P was dismissed and Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar preferred C.M.A.No.2341 of 1999 on the file of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh to set aside the dismissal order.

5. When the said CMA was pending, Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar married the plaintiff on 19.04.2000 at Sri Raja Rajeswari Temple, Rotary Nagar, Khammam as per Hindu rites and customs. Aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1 filed a criminal case vide C.C.No.293 of 2006 under Section 494 of Cr.P.C alleging that her husband married the plaintiff during subsistence of her marriage. While the things stood thus, in the year 2008, the elders have brought about settlement between defendant Nos.1 to 3 and Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar whereby Late Ravi Kumar paid an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- to defendant Nos.1 to 3 towards full and final settlement of their share in his properties. In a reciprocal arrangement, defendant No.1 withdrew her bigamy case i.e. C.C.No.293 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bheemavaram. Further, by filing a memo, the CMA was allowed. The aforementioned settlement was presented before the Lok Adalat at Bheemavaram and an award was passed incorporating the terms of settlement. Meanwhile, as per the orders in H.M.O.P.No.13 of 2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bheemavaram, the marriage between defendant No.1 and her husband was dissolved. Thus, defendant No.1 ceased to be wife of Late Ravi Kumar. Thereafter, on 03.12.2010, Varanasi Ravi Kumar died leaving behind the plaintiff as his sole successor. After the death of Ravi Kumar, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration to declare her as the legal heir of Late Ravi Kumar and consequential relief of entitlement to seek death benefits and other emoluments of Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar.

6. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 made appearance before the trial Court and filed written statement claiming to be legal heirs of Late Ravi Kumar. Further, denied the legal status of the plaintiff as wife of Late Ravi Kumar as her marriage with Late Ravi Kumar took place during the subsistence of the defendant No.1’s marriage with her husband. Defendant No.1 denied the marriage between the plaintiff and her husband and also relinquishing her share. The defendants pleaded that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim death benefits of late Ravi Kumar as relinquishment is a nominal document which does not debar them from claiming the death benefits.

7. Defendan