Dismissed

Narayana Reddy v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC29 Mar 2021RSA/291/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeals challenging the denial of a succession certificate for an excise licence. The High Court held that plaintiffs proved their relationship as wife and daughters of the deceased through oral and documentary evidence. The appeal to quash the lower courts' findings on this factual issue was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appellants' second appeals were dismissed; succession certificate in favour of the respondents stands confirmed.

Narayana Reddy Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF MARCH 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

¶6

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.292 OF 2021 (DEC) C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.291 OF 2021 (DEC)

¶7

IN R.S.A. NO.292/2021:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

NARAYANA REDDY SON OF BACHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS

¶10

ANANDA REDDY SON OF NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶11

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT EESHWARACHARI WATER WORKS, IN THE HOUSE OF JAYAMANGALA KRISHNAPPA MALUR TOWN, KOLAR DISTRICT KARNATAKA-563103.

¶12

RATHNAMMA DAUGHTER OF NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O CHIKKA TIRUPATI VILLAGE, LAKKURU HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563130.

¶13

CHANDRA REDDY SON OF NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶14

¶15

R/O DODDA KADATHURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563130.

¶16

...APPELLANTS

¶17

(BY SRI ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

SMT. BHAGYAMMA WIFE OF LATE N. JAYARAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶20

J. NAGINI DAUGHTER OF LATE N. JAYARAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

¶21

J. PUNYAVATHI DAUGHTER OF LATE J. NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

¶22

RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT DODDA KADATHURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563103.

¶23

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563101.

¶24

THE EXCISE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DIVISION, KOLAR-563101.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI SUNIL S. RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI T. SHESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOs.1 TO 3)

¶27

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.12.2020 PASSED IN R.A. NO.169/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

¶28

¶29

JUDGE, KOLAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.10.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.155/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MALUR.

¶30

IN R.S.A.NO.291/2021:

¶31

BETWEEN:

¶32

NARAYANA REDDY SON OF BACHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS

¶33

RATHNAMMA DAUGHTER OF NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶34

RESIDING AT DODDA KADATHURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563103

¶35

...APPELLANTS

¶36

(BY SRI ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE)

¶37

AND:

¶38

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563101.

¶39

THE EXCISE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DIVISION, KOLAR-563101.

¶40

BHAGYAMMA @ BHAGYA BAI WIFE OF EESHWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶41

J. NAGINI

¶42

¶43

DAUGHTER OF EESHWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

¶44

5. J. PUNYAVATHI DAUGHTER OF EESHWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

¶45

RESPONDENT 1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT C/O K.R.SOMASHEKARA REDDY, DODDA KADATHURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563103.

¶46

…RESPONDENTS

¶47

(BY SRI SUNIL S. RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI T. SHESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOs.3 TO 5)

¶48

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.12.2020 PASSED IN R.A.NO.170/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KOLAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.10.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.156/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MALUR.

¶49

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶50

JUDGMENT

¶51

IN RSA No.292/2021

¶52

This is an appeal filed by defendant Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 in O.S. No.155/2014 challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 30.10.2018 passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No.155/2014 which was confirmed by the First Appellate

¶53

¶54

Court in R.A. No.169/2018. Both the Courts held that the plaintiffs / respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 herein are the wife and daughters of late Sri N.Jayarama Reddy and were thus entitled for a succession certificate to seek renewal of the excise licence that stood in the name of the husband of plaintiff No.1.

¶55

For the sake of convenience, the parties will henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court.

¶56

Plaintiffs filed an application for grant of succession certificate in respect of an excise licence that stood in the name of Sri N. Jayarama Reddy and claimed that plaintiff No.1 was his wife while plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 were his daughters. Defendant No.3 is the father while defendant Nos.4, 5 and 6 are the siblings of Sri N.Jayarama Reddy. Defendants filed their objection to the application for grant of succession certificate and therefore, the Trial Court converted the application to a suit in O.S. No.155/2014 in view of Section 295 of the

¶57

¶58

Indian Succession Act, 1925. The plaintiffs contended that the said Sri N. Jayarama Reddy had married plaintiff No.1 in the year 1996. Plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 were residing in a rented house till they shifted to their native village Dodda Kadathuru and thereafter to Malur. Plaintiffs claimed that the said Sri N. Jayarama Reddy died on 09.04.2011. Thereafter, plaintiff No.1 sought for transfer of excise licence that Sri N. Jayarama Reddy held. It is stated that since the department sought for a succession certificate, the plaintiffs sought for grant of a certificate on the ground that they were surviving legal heirs of Sri N. Jayarama Reddy.

¶59

Defendant Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 contended that plaintiff No.1 was known as Smt.Bhagya Bai and that she was married to one Sri Eshwar Rao and that Sri Eshwar Rao was alive and therefore, plaintiff No.1 could not contend to be the wife of Sri N.Jayarama Reddy. They also disputed the relationship of plaintiff No.1 with Sri N. Jayarama Reddy and claimed that plaintiff Nos.2 and 3

¶60

¶61

were not the daughters of Sri N. Jayarama Reddy, but were the daughters of Sri Eshwar Rao.

¶62

Based on these rival contentions, the Trial Court framed the following Issues and additional issue:

¶63

“1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are only legal heirs / successor of deceased N. Jayaramareddy as pleaded in the plaint ?

¶64

Whether defendants prove that suit is not maintainable ?

¶65

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled the relief as sought for ?

¶66

What order or decree ?”

¶67

Additional issue framed on 22.11.2016:

¶68

“1. Whether plaintiff proves that they are the absolute owner of suit schedule properties as pleaded in the plaint?”

¶69

Plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW.1 and she

¶70

examined 8 other witnesses as PWs.2 to 9 and marked

¶71

documents as Exs.P1 to P279. Defendant No.4 was examined as RW.1 and he marked documents as Exs.R1 to R21.

¶72

¶73

Based on the oral and documentary evidence,

¶74

the Trial Court held that the plaintiff No.1 proved that she was married to Sri N. Jayarama Reddy. In order to record such a finding, the Trial Court relied upon Ex.P24 and Ex.P277, which are the progress card and the admission application in respect of plaintiff No.2 maintained in School and Ex.P278 and Ex.P23 which is the admission application and progress card in respect of plaintiff No.3. It also noticed the evidence of PW.3, who deposed that the marriage of plaintiff No.1 with Sri N.Jayarama Reddy was held in Amaranarayana / Yoginarayana Temple, Kaiwara and that he had attended the marriage. Though he claimed that the marriage was registered in the register maintained for the purpose in the temple, the plaintiffs did not produce any document in that regard. The evidence of PWs.4 and 5 also pointed to the fact that plaintiff No.1 was married to Sri N.Jayarama Reddy. Even otherwise, the Trial Court relied upon the other documents of Sri N.Jayarama Reddy which were in the custody of the plaintiffs which demonstrated that the plaintiff No.1 could

¶75

¶76

not be in possession of those documents unless she was in close quarters with Sri N.Jayarama Reddy. The documents also indicate that plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 were the daughters of Sri N.Jayarama Reddy. The Trial Court, therefore, held that plaintiff No.1 is the wife and plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are the daughters of Sri N.Jayarama Reddy and thus, directed the issuance of a succession certificate in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the licence. The Trial Court further held that the compromise decree entered into between defendant No.3 and his children inter se in O.S. No.354/2011 with respect to ‘Sannadu’ / licence dated 18.12.2010 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge, Malur, did not bind the plaintiffs.

¶77

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree of the Trial Court, defendant Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 filed R.A. No.169/2018. The First Appellate Court secured the records of the Trial Court, heard the learned counsel for the parties and framed the following points for consideration:

¶78

¶79

“1. Whether plaintiffs have proved that they are the legal heirs of late N. Jayarama Reddy, being his wife and daughters and they are entitled to Succession Certificate in respect of ‘Sannadu’ (Bar licence)?

¶80

Whether defendant Nos.3 and 5 have proved that late N. Jayarama Reddy was a bachelor; the plaintiffs are strangers and only defendant Nos.3 and 5 are entitled for issuance of Succession Certificate ?

¶81

Whether I.A. No.III filed by defendant Nos.3 to 6 under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC in R.A. No.169/2018 seeking to adduce additional evidence deserves to be allowed?

¶82

Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court calls for any interference by this Court in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction?

¶83

What Order ? ”

¶84

The First Appellate Court held that the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 9 and the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs indicated beyond doubt that plaintiff No.1 was the wife of late Sri N.Jayarama Reddy and plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are their daughters. The First

¶85

¶86

Appellate Court held that defendant Nos.3 to 6 failed to establish that plaintiff No.1 was the wife of Sri Eshwar Rao and that the deceased Sri N.Jayarama Reddy was a bachelor and that plaintiffs were strangers to Sri N.Jayarama Reddy. The First Appellate Court therefore dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.

¶87

Before the First Appellate Court, defendant Nos.3 to 6 filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking to adduce additional documents, namely, an application submitted by defendant No.3 and an endorsement issued by Sri Amaranarayanaswamy Temple, Kaiwara, to the effect that there was no record relating to the marriage of plaintiff No.1 and Sri N. Jayarama Reddy and an endorsement dated 12.02.2019 issued by Tahasildar, Malur Taluk, and FIR in Crime No.63/2019 relating to the fabrication of Ex.P18 – voters identity card produced by plaintiff No.1. The First Appellate Court did not feel it necessary to

¶88

¶89

consider these documents as there was enormous evidence on record which indicated the relationship of plaintiff No.1 with Sri N.Jayarama Reddy and thus dismissed the application filed by defendant Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6.

¶90

Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, defendant Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 have filed this second appeal.

¶91

Learned counsel appearing for defendant Nos.3 to 6 / appellants seriously contended that plaintiff No.1 did not place on record any material to establish her relationship with N. Jayarama Reddy. He contended that Exs.P23, P24, P277 and 278 are records which are just prior to the death of Sri N. Jayarama Reddy and are therefore not reliable. He also contended that the First Appellate Court ought to have allowed the additional documents to be brought on record which indicated that the plaintiff No.1 was not married to Sri N.Jayarama

¶92

¶93

Reddy. He also brought to the notice of the Court that the signatures of Sri N.Jayarama Reddy found on Exs.P277 and P278 did not correspond with the signatures of Sri N. Jayarama Reddy. He contended that the Trial Court committed an error in comparing the signatures found on Exs.P277 and P278 with that of an unregistered agreement executed by Muralidhar - PW.8 from whom Sri N. Jayarama Reddy took the ‘Kolaramma Bar and Restaurant’ on lease.

¶94

Per contra, learned counsel for plaintiffs – respondents 1 to 3 contended that there is evidence galore in the case which indicated the relationship of plaintiff No.1 with Sri N.Jayarama Reddy. He also pointed out that the witnesses who attended the marriage of Sri N.Jayarama Reddy with plaintiff No.1 had deposed about the said marriage in their evidence and that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court rightly considered the evidence of PWs.1 to 9 to return a finding about the marriage of plaintiff No.1 with Sri N. Jayarama Reddy. Even otherwise,

¶95

¶96

he contended that the documents such as Exs.P277, P278, P23 and P24 established that plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are the daughters of Sri N.Jayarama Reddy. He contended that even otherwise, plaintiffs and defendant Nos.3 and 6 were residents of the same village and therefore, the said defendants ought to have placed on record adequate material to establish that plaintiff No.1 was the wife of Sri Eshwar Rao. Learned counsel contended that mere mentioning of the name of Smt.Bhagyamma / Bhagya Bai, wife of Sri Eashwar Rao in the cause title of P & SC No.1/12 filed by the defendant Nos.3 to 6 does not call for a reply, as that could not change the relationship of plaintiff No.1 with Sri N. Jayarama Reddy.

¶97

I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶98

The entire dispute revolves around the transfer of excise licence that was granted in the name of Sri N.Jayarama Reddy. While plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff Nos.2

¶99

¶100

and 3 claimed that they are the wife and daughters respectively of late Sri N. Jayarama Reddy, defendant Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 claimed that they are the father and siblings of Sri N. Jayarama Reddy. Defendant Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 claimed that Sri N. Jayarama Reddy died as a bachelor and that plaintiff No.1 was the wife of Sri Eshwar Rao, who sired plaintiff Nos.2 and 3. In order to establish the relationship of plaintiff No.1 with Sri N.Jayarama Reddy and their marriage, plaintiff examined PWs.2, 3, 4 and 5. There are documentary evidence which indicate that at an undisputed point of time, when Sri N. Jayarama Reddy was alive, plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 were shown to be the daughters of Jayarama Reddy in the school records. Except the self serving statement of the defendants that plaintiff No.1 was the wife of Eshwar Rao, they have not produced any material on record. Exs.R5 to R7, which defendant Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 relied upon to indicate that a person named Smt.Bhagya Bai is the wife of Sri Eshwar Rao cannot establish the relationship of plaintiff No.1 with Sri Eshwar Rao. Ex.P258, which is the ration card issued on the basis

¶101

¶102

of a declaration made by defendant No.3 being the head of the family, dispels the contention of the defendants that plaintiff No.1 was the not the wife of Sri N. Jayarama Reddy. Ex.P258 would indicate the members of the family of defendant No.3 and it also indicates plaintiff No.1 to be the daughter-in-law of defendant No.3. Be that as it may, the plaintiff No.1 has substantially proved her relationship with the deceased N.Jayarama Reddy and has successfully established the relationship. The evidence of PWs.2, 3, 4 and 5 fulfills the requirement of section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the documentary evidence, more particularly Exs.P277 and P278 and Exs.P23 and P24 will establish the relationship of the plaintiff No.1, plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 with deceased Sri N. Jayarama Reddy.

¶103

As regards the rejection of the application filed by the defendants under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code before the First Appellate Court, the four documents sought to be produced were (i) an application filed by the defendant No.3 with Sri Amranarayanaswamy

¶104

¶105

temple, Kaiwara (ii) endorsement issued by the said temple that the marriage of plaintiff No.1 with Sri N. Jayarama Reddy was not registered (iii) FIR registered by the Police in Crime No.63/2019 relating to the fabrication of Ex.P18 – voter identity card and (iv) an endorsement dated 12.02.2019 issued by the Tahasildar, Malur. These documents were undoubtedly not available with the defendant Nos.3 to 6 at the time of trial. Therefore, defendant Nos.3 to 6 had made out a case for not producing them as additional documentary evidence before the Trial Court. Even if the said documents are taken for their face value, they cannot take away the proof of the relationship of plaintiff No.1 with deceased Sri N. Jayarama Reddy which are evident from the other documentary evidence, more particularly, Ex.P258 which is the ration card of the defendants and indicates the plaintiff No.1 as the wife of Sri N. Jayarama Reddy. Therefore, defendants have attempted to produce the endorsement issued by Sri Amaranarayanaswamy temple only to overcome the oral evidence of PW.3, who deposed that the marriage of

¶106

¶107

plaintiff No.1 with deceased Sri N. Jayarama Reddy was registered in the temple. The Trial Court had noticed the contention of defendant Nos.3 to 6 that the plaintiff No.1 had not produced any documentary evidence to establish that her marriage with Sri N. Jayarama Reddy was registered in the temple. In so far as the F.I.R registered by the Police, that will not impact the finding of the Civil Court as the documents placed on record by the plaintiffs probabilize their case that plaintiff No.1 was married to late Sri N. Jayarama Reddy. Therefore, the First Appellate Court was right in rejecting the application for additional documentary evidence and the same does not call for any interference by this Court.

¶108

In that view of the matter, since the Courts have concluded the dispute regarding relationship of plaintiffs with deceased Sri N. Jayarama Reddy, which is a pure question of fact, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

¶109

¶110

IN RSA No.291/2021

¶111

R.S.A. No.291/2021 is filed by plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 in O.S. No.156/2014 challenging the judgment and Decree dated 11.12.2020 passed by the First Appellate Court in R.A No.170/2018 confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 30.10.2018 passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No.156/2014 by which their claim for issuance of a succession certificate in respect of the excise licence that stood in the name of Sri N.Jayarama Reddy was rejected.

¶112

In view of the findings recorded by this Court in RSA No.292/2021, nothing survives for consideration in this appeal.

¶113

This appeal is dismissed.

¶114

In view of disposal of these appeals, the respective pending interlocutory application in these appeals do not survive for consideration and the same stand disposed of.

¶115

Sd/JUDGE

¶116

sma

Narayana Reddy v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayana Reddy v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri H.N. Basavaraju Vs Sri Subanna

Sri S R Mallikarjuna Reddy Vs Sri Gangadhara

Mohan Kumar Vs Nanjundappa

Shri Narayanaswamy Vs Smt Muniyamma

Narayana Reddy Vs Smt Bhagyamma

Smt. Shashikala Vs Mr. Harry Dsouza