DECREE

DATED

20.12.2008 PASSED IN P AND SC NO.27/2003 ON THE FILE OF

THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND CJM,

4

SHIVAMOGGA, REJECTING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.372

OF INDIAN SUCCESSSION ACT.

THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED

FOR

ORDERS

ON

10.07.2023

THIS

DAY,

COURT

PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

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

5

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,

6

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

7

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