Dismissed
Mahadeva v. Lokesh. M
Karnataka HCRSA/570/2018
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED…
What the court decided
AI extract
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.570 OF 2018 c/w REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.543 OF 2018
IN RSA No.570/2018
BETWEEN:
MAHADEVA DEAD BY LRS.
THE APPELLANTS NO.1 (a) TO 1 (c) ARE R/AT NO.39/L-2, 3RD CROSS, A J BLOCK, MAHADEVAPURA MAIN ROAD GANDHINAGARA MYSURU-570 003.
2
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI RUDRAPPA P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
SINCE THE 2ND RESPONDENT IS MENTALLY DISABLED. REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN BROTHER LOKESH M., i.e., RESPONDENT NO.1
BOTH ARE R/AT D.NO.4349, 7TH CROSS, GANDHINAGARA, MYSURU-570 003.
3
… RESPONDENTS
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 07.12.2017 PASSED IN RA NO.526/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.05.2012 PASSED IN OS.NO.403/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL I CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU.
IN RSA No.543/2018
BETWEEN:
SINCE 2ND APPELLANT IS MENTALLY DISABLED.
4
REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN BROTHER LOKESH M., i.e., FIRST APPELLANT)
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI MUKKANNAPPA S B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
5
… RESPONDENTS
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 07.12.2017 PASSED IN RA NO.526/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.05.2012 PASSED IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.403/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL I CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU.
THESE REGULAR SECOND APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
6
JUDGMENT
RSA No.570/2018 is filed by defendant No.2 and the legal representatives of deceased defendant No.1 challenging the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court in RA No.526/2016 by which it reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court in O.S No.403/2009 and decreed it in part.
7
retirement benefits and to enter the name of the plaintiffs as legal heirs of defendant No.1 in the service records.
claimed that a settlement was arrived at between defendant No.1 and Smt.Javaramma in O.S No.125/2008. As per the settlement plaintiffs were permitted to receive the entire death benefits of Smt.Javaramma and also enabled the plaintiff No.1 to seek appointment on compassionate ground. In order to enable
8
the first plaintiff to secure the job on compassionate ground, the defendant No.1 had sought for voluntary retirement as the Service Rules mandated that there should be no person beneficially employed in the family. Defendant No.1 claimed that after death of Smt.Javaramma he married defendant No.2 and therefore the marriage was valid. It is further contended that second plaintiff had filed C.Mis.147/2007 for maintenance and that the same was dismissed. Defendant No.1 contended that since he had sought for voluntary retirement he was entitled to receive the entire retirement benefits and plaintiffs had no right to claim the retirement benefits.
the following issues:
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant No.1 is bound to maintain the plaintiffs and to perform the marriage of the 2nd plaintiff?
3. Whether the 1st defendant proves that in view of the compromise in OS.No.125/2008 on the file of Civil Judge & JMFC the suit is not maintainable?
9
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs claimed in the suit?
5. What order or decree?”
The plaintiff was examined as PW1 and witnesses as PW1
and PW2 and they marked documents as Exs.P1 to P27. The defendant was examined as DW1 and marked documents Exs.D1 to D9.
10
two appeals by the plaintiffs as well as defendant No.2 and the legal heirs of defendant No.1.
Sd/JUDGE
UN
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the first Appellate Court erred in directing that 50% of retirement benefits go to plaintiffs and 50% to legal heirs of deceased Defendant No.1.
Mahadeva Dead by LRS: Purushothama M, Vivekananda Swamy M, Divyashree M, Bhagyamma
Lokesh M, Kanchana M
Nataraj Rangaswamy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court