Allowed

Sri. M. R. Sathyanarayana Setty v. Smt. K. R. Lakshmamma

Karnataka HC9 Dec 2021WP/1631/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a revision petition regarding rival succession claims to fixed deposits. Ruling that money transferred inter vivos is not inherited property, the court rejected the respondent's claim under the Hindu Succession Act and directed the division of deposited amounts between the rival claimants.

What did the court decide?

The civil Court’s order rejecting the application was set aside; the successor petition was rejected; the First Respondent was entitled to Rs.35,00,000; and the remaining amount was directed to the pe

Sri. M. R. Sathyanarayana Setty Vs Smt. K. R… — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1631/2019 [GM-CPC] C/W CRP NO.399/2018, CRP NO.654/2018

¶6

IN WP NO. 1631/2019:

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SRI. M. R. SATHYANARAYANA SETTY AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/AT NO. H-108, 2^ND CROSS, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 023.

¶9

SMT. RAMARATHNAMMA W/O. M. R. SATHYANARAYANA SETTY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,

¶10

SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS

¶11

2(A). SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O LATE SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA AND D/O SRI M.R. SATHYANARAYANASETTY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶12

2(B). SMT. RUKMINI W/O SRI N. SATHYANARAYAN AND D/O SRI. M.R. SATHYANARAYANA SETTY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶13

¶14

2(C). SRI. SHANTHA KUMAR S/O SRI M.R. SATHYANARAYANASETTY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, ALL AT NO. G 108, II CROSS MAGADI ROAD BENGALURU – 560 023. (BY SRI. SURESH K, ADVOCATE) AND :

¶15

... PETITIONERS

¶16

SMT. K. R. LAKSHMAMMA W/O. LATE K. V. PATHI, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, R/AT NO. 549, 6^TH MAIN, 4^TH CROSS, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶17

M/S. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK NO.253, KANAKAPURA ROAD, 7^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 070, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 3. M/S. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK NO.42/166, EAST END MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGAR 9^TH BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560 060, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶18

... RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.AMBAJI RAO NAJARE., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. S.N. KESHAVA BHAT., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 25.09.2018 ON I.A.NO.4 IN O.S.NO.4749/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDITIONAL

¶21

¶22

CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH NO.32, BENGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ALLOW I.A.NO.4 BY SEEKING FOR RELEASE THE AMOUNTS. IN THE SAID SUIT.

¶23

IN CRP NO. 399/2018:

¶24

BETWEEN :

¶25

SRI M R SATHYANARAYANA SETTY S/O SRI RANGASWAMY SETTY AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, R/AT NO. H-108, 2^ND CROSS, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 023.

¶26

SMT RAMARATHNAMMA W/O SRI M R SATHYANARAYANA SETTY, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,

¶27

SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS

¶28

2(A). SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O LATE SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA AND D/O SRI M.R. SATHYANARAYANASETTY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶29

2(B). SMT. RUKMINI W/O SRI N. SATHYANARAYAN AND D/O SRI. M.R. SATHYANARAYANA SETTY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶30

2(C). SRI. SHANTHA KUMAR S/O SRI M.R. SATHYANARAYANA SETTY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶31

ALL ARE AT NO. G 108, II CROSS MAGADI ROAD BENGALURU – 560 023.

¶32

... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SURESH.K, ADVOCATE)

¶33

¶34

AND :

¶35

SMT. K. R. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE SRI K V PATHI AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS, NO 549, 6^TH MAIN, 4^TH CROSS, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 076.

¶36

M/S INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, # 253, KANAKAPURA ROAD, VII BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 070 REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶37

M/S INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK # 42/166, EAST END MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGAR 9^TH BLOCK, BENGALURU – 560 069. REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶38

... RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SRI. AMBAJI RAO NAJARE., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SRI. S.N. KESHAVA BHAT., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶40

CRP FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC.,PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 27.06.2017 PASSED IN P AND SC NO.343/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CCCH.NO.32, BENGALURU, AS PER ANNEXURE 'A' AND RELEASE THE AMOUNTS IN DEPOSIT TO THE PETITIONER NO.2 IN PURSUANCE OF THE ORDERS PASSED IN P AND SC NO.96/2017, BY THE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH.NO.41)BENGALURU.

¶41

¶42

IN CRP NO.654/2018:

¶43

BETWEEN :

¶44

SRI M R SATHYANARAYANA SETTY S/O SRI RANGASWAMY SETTY AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, R/AT NO. H-108, 2^ND CROSS, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 023.

¶45

SMT RAMARATHNAMMA W/O SRI M R SATHYANARAYANA SETTY, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS

¶46

2(A). SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O LATE SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA AND D/O SRI M.R. SATHYANARAYANASETTY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶47

2(B). SMT. RUKMINI W/O SRI N. SATHYANARAYAN AND D/O SRI. M.R. SATHYANARAYANA SETTY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶48

2(C). SRI. SHANTHA KUMAR S/O SRI M.R. SATHYANARAYANA SETTY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, ALL AT NO. G 108, II CROSS MAGADI ROAD BENGALURU – 560 023. ... PETITIONERS

¶49

(BY SRI. SURESH.K, ADVOCATE)

¶50

¶51

AND :

¶52

SMT. K. R. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE SRI K V PATHI AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS, NO 549, 6^TH MAIN, 4^TH CROSS, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 076.

¶53

M/S INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, # 253, KANAKAPURA ROAD, VII BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 070 REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶54

M/S INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK # 42/166, EAST END MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGAR 9^TH BLOCK, BENGALURU – 560 069. REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶55

... RESPONDENTS

¶56

(BY SRI. AMBAJI RAO NAJARE., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SRI. S.N. KESHAVA BHAT., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶57

CRP FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S. NO. 4749/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH NO. 32, BENGALURU CITY; SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.10.2018 ON IA NO. VI IN O.S. NO. 4749/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE CCCH NO. 32, BENGALURU AS PER ANNEXURE 'G' AND ALLOW I.A. NO. VI 'REJECTING THE PLAINT' IN THE SAID SUIT.

¶58

¶59

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶60

O R D E R

¶61

Sri. Suresh. K and Sri.Ambaji Rao Najare, the learned counsels for the parties, are heard for final disposal of the aforesaid petitions. The present petitions arise from a rival claim to a legacy that is open for succession among the two rival claimants because of the demise of a family, comprising of a couple and their only child, in a road accident on 23.05.2016. The rival claimants are the husband’s parents and the wife’s mother. The husband’s mother is no more and her legal representatives have joined the proceedings. The legacy insofar as these proceedings are concerned, comprises of three fixed deposits now deposited in O.S. No.4749/2018 with the XX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge [for short, 'the civil Court' ].

¶62

¶63

The details of the present proceedings are as follows:

¶64

CRP No.654/2018 : This revision petition is filed by the parents of the deceased Sri. Saisuriya impugning the civil Court’s order dated 30.10.2018 in O.S. No.4749/2018. The civil Court by this impugned order has rejected the petitioner's application [I.A. No.VI] under Order VII Rule 11[a] read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short ‘ the CPC' ].

¶65

CRP No.399/2018 : The aforesaid petitioners have filed this petition impugning the civil Court's order dated 27.06.2018 . The civil Court by this impugned order dated 27.06.2018 has permitted the registration of the petition by Smt. Sudhamani's mother [the first respondent], which is under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 [for short, ' the IS Act' ] for issuance of succession certificate, as an original suit and the civil

¶66

¶67

Court has accepted the deposits by M/s. Indian Overseas Bank subject to its further orders.

¶68

W.P. No.1631/2019 : This writ petition is also filed by

¶69

parents of the deceased, Sri. Saisuriya impugning the civil Court's order dated 25.09.2018. The civil Court by this impugned order has rejected the petitioners' application [I.A. No.IV] for release of the deposits by M/s. Indian Overseas Bank with the civil Court as aforesaid.

¶70

The learned counsels are categorical that the civil revision petition in CRP No.399/2018 and the writ petition in W.P. No.1631/2019 will depend upon the outcome of the civil revision petition in CRP No.654/2018, and they submit that if the petitioners succeed in establishing that the petition in P & SC No.343/2017 is to be rejected under Order VII of CPC at the threshold on the ground that it is either barred by law or because there is no cause of action, the

¶71

¶72

petitioners, who have the benefit of the Succession Certificate for the same deposits in the petition filed by them under Section 372 of the IS Act, would be entitled to receive the amounts in deposits. The petitions are disposed off in the light of these submissions.

¶73

The facts necessary for a decision in the petitions are mentioned as follows:

¶74

4.1 Sri. Saisuriya and his wife, Smt. Sudhamani,

¶75

as also their only minor son Master Dhanush, died in a road accident on 23.05.2016. On their demise in such road accident, the petitioners [the parents of the deceased Sri. Saisuriya] have presented a claim petition in MVC No.6033/2016 before the competent Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. In this petition, the first respondent [Smt. Sudhamani’s mother] has filed an application to implead herself asserting that she is entitled to the compensation payable as contemplated under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶76

¶77

This application is rejected. It is submitted that the rejection of this application is the subject matter of a parallel proceedings, and the claim petition in MVC No.6033/2016, which is dismissed, is pending in appeal.

¶78

4.2 The mother of Sri. Saisuriya, Smt.

¶79

Ramarathnamma, has filed their petition under Section 372 of the IS Act in P & SC No.96/2017 which is allowed on 13.12.2017 issuing Succession Certificate not only for the four deposits that are subject matter of the present proceedings but also for the life insurance policies purchased in the name of the deceased couple. She has commenced contempt proceedings asserting that she is constrained to initiate such proceedings because the Bank despite the production of the succession certificate is not paying her the amount due as against the subject deposits. However, the Insurance Companies, acting upon the Succession Certificate,

¶80

¶81

have released the amount payable under the life insurance policies.

¶82

4.3 In the meanwhile, the first respondent has filed her application under Section 372 of the IS Act, from which the present proceedings emanate, for issuance of succession certificate for four fixed deposits. These fixed deposits are either in the joint name of the deceased couple or joint names of Smt. Sudhamani and her father [Sri. K.V. Pathi] or in the name of Smt. Sudhamani.

¶83

4.4 M/s. Indian Overseas Bank purportedly because of the dispute between the parties, has deposited the amount payable under the subject fixed deposits in the present petition in P & SC No.343/2017 and not in the petition in P & SC No.96/2017 commenced by the mother of Sri. Saisuriya. The civil Court while accepting the said deposits subject to its further orders, has registered the petition in P & SC

¶84

¶85

No.343/2007 as a suit for adjudication because of the rival claims.

¶86

4.5 This order is impugned in CRP

¶87

No.399/2018. The petitioner's application for release of the amount is later rejected by order dated 25.09.2018 which is subject matter of the writ petition in W.P. No.1631/2019. The petitioners' application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is rejected by the subsequent order dated 30.10.2018 and this is the subject matter of the petition in CRP No.654/2018.

¶88

The petitioners have filed their application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC contending that though the first respondent has filed the petition asserting that she has made over a sum of Rs. 1,53,00,000/- on 18.01.2016 and subsequently another sum of Rs.40,00,000/- to Smt. K.V. Sudhamani and this amount is invested in the subject fixed deposit, she has not produced any proof of the same. They have also

¶89

¶90

contended that the couple was married for 15-20 years prior to the date of the accident and both of them were engaged in their own business. The amount in deposit is their self acquired properties. Therefore, the first respondent cannot claim these amounts in deposit as her daughter’s successor-in-interest. The first respondent has contested this application asserting that on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it cannot be denied that the first respondent has set out necessary circumstances to establish that the money in different deposits is given by her and therefore the petition cannot be rejected. The civil Court by a rather cryptic order has rejected the petitioners' application observing that it is of the opinion that the plaint discloses a definite cause and therefore it cannot be rejected.

¶91

Sri. Suresh K, the learned counsel for the petitioners canvasses the following two fold submissions in support of the application under Order VII Rule 11 of

¶92

¶93

CPC and against its rejection. He argues that the first respondent relies upon the provisions of Section 15[2] of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [for short, 'the HS Act' ]. Even if the first respondent's case, that she has made over a sum of Rs.1,53,00,000/- and another sum of Rs.40,00,000/- is accepted, it cannot be said that the deceased Smt. Sudhamani inherited this amount from the first respondent. He emphasizes that the provisions of Section 15[2] of HS Act come into play only when there is inheritance and not when the transfer is inter vivos; if the first respondent is unable to establish inheritance , a condition required to be satisfied for applicability of Section 15[2] of the HS Act, the petitioners would be entitled to succeed to the deposit under Section 15[1][b] of the HS Act; and as such, there would be no cause of action for the present petition.

¶94

Sri. Suresh next argues that the petitioners' prior petition under Section 372 of the IS Act in P & SC

¶95

¶96

No.96/2017 is allowed on 13.12.2017 issuing the Succession Certificate for the assets including the subject deposits. The first petitioner has called this order in question in MFA No.2542/2018, but she has withdrawn the same without any liberty and she has later filed the present petition for issuance of succession certificate in her name. If the first respondent is aggrieved with the issuance of the Succession Certificate, the only remedy available to her is to file the application for revocation as contemplated under Section 383 of the IS Act. The petitioners have not sought for such revocation and have filed the present petition for issuance of succession certificate.

¶97

However, Sri. Suresh. K does not dispute

¶98

that the first respondent has independently filed the application under Section 383 of the IS Act for revocation of the Succession Certificate issued in favour of the petitioners and such petition is still pending

¶99

¶100

consideration [P & SC No.243/2018]. Therefore, the second ground need not detain this Court. Sri. Suresh.K also points out that apart from the deposits that are subject matter of P & SC No.96/2017, the first respondent has mentioned two other deposits, including the deposit in the name of Smt. Sudhamani and her father, Sri. K.V. Pathi, for a sum of Rs.6,64,559/-.

¶101

This Court must observe that neither of these grounds have been considered by the civil Court in rejecting the petitioners' application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, but, as observed earlier, this Court must examine whether the petitioners can succeed on the first ground. Though Sri. Ambaji Rao Najare, the learned counsel for the first respondent, attempts to justify the first respondent's claim relying upon the assertion that the first respondent has transferred Rs.1,53,00,000/- and Rs.40,00,000/- in the days just prior to the date of the accident, he is unable to

¶102

¶103

persuade this Court to opine that such transfer could be called inheritance , a condition must for the provision of Section 15[2] of the HS Act to prevail with the first respondent being entitled to the amount in deposit.

¶104

It is settled law that the succession to any property left behind by a Hindu woman would devolve to the class of legal heirs mentioned in Section 15[1] of the HS Act and only as an exception when the ingredients necessary either under Section 15[2][a] or [b] are satisfied, the heirs mentioned therein would succeed. A useful reference could be made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.R. Srinivasa & Ors v. S. Padmavathamma reported in (2010) 5 SCC 274. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the following:

¶105

Sub-section (2) of Section 15 carves out an exception in case of a female dying intestate without leaving son, daughter or children of a predeceased son or daughter. In such a case, the rule prescribed is to find out the source from

¶106

¶107

which she has inherited the property. If it is inherited from her father or mother, it would devolve as prescribed under Section 15(2)(a). If it is inherited by her from her husband or father-inlaw, it would devolve upon the heirs of her husband under Section 15(2)(b). The clause enacts that in a case where the property is inherited by a female from her father or mother, it would devolve not upon the other heirs, but upon the heirs of her father. This would mean that if there is no son or daughter including the children of any predeceased son or daughter, then the property would devolve upon the heirs of her father. Result would be -- if the property is inherited by a female from her father or her mother, neither her husband nor his heirs would get such property, but it would revert back to the heirs of her fathe r.

¶108

This Court must also observe that the first respondent does not rely upon any agreement with her deceased daughter for repayment of the aforesaid amounts. This Court must opine that the petitioners must succeed insofar their application only on this ground because it is undisputed that the transfer of the amount relied

¶109

¶110

upon by the petitioner is an inter vivos transfer without any condition.

¶111

At this point of time, it must be recorded that when queried by this Court about one of the deposits in the joint names of Smt. Sudhamani and her father, Sri. K.V. Pathi and the other deposit not being mentioned in P & SC No.96/2017, the learned counsel, Sri. Suresh K, submits that there are other proceedings pending inter se parties not only as regards some other deposits but also over rights to immovable properties, the petitioners, without prejudice to the petitioners' defence in those cases and to buy peace insofar as the subject matter of these proceedings, would be willing for payment of Rs.35,00,000/- out of the amount in deposit in O.S. No.4749/2018 to the first respondent.

¶112

This Court, in the light of this submission and the fact that the first respondent has also lost her daughter, her son-in-law and a grandson from them, is

¶113

¶114

persuaded to accept this submission with a caveat that while the petitioners could draw support from this Court's conclusion on the first respondent's reliance on Section 15[2] of the HS Act but subject to the facts and circumstances of the other proceedings, the first respondent cannot draw any support from the concession that is now made behalf of the petitioners. For the foregoing, the following:

¶115

ORDER

¶116

The civil revision petition in CRP No. 654/2018 is allowed and the civil Court’s order dated 30.10.2018 in O.S. No.4749/2018 rejection the application [I.A. No.VI] under Order VII Rule 11[a] read with Section 151 of the CPC is allowed. Consequentially, the petition in P & SC No.343/2017 under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which is presently registered as O.S. No.4749/2018, is rejected subject to payment of amounts in deposit as directed hereinafter:

¶117

¶118

The first respondent, from out of the total amount in deposit, shall be entitled for a sum of Rs.35,00,000/and the petitioners together shall be entitled for the remaining amount. The trial Court shall disburse the amount as aforesaid on receipt of a certified copy of this order subject to the other requirements.

¶119

The petitions in CRP No.399/2018 and W.P. No.1631/2019 stand disposed of because of the disposal of the petition in CRP No.654/2018 in terms of this order.

¶120

Sd/JUDGE

¶121

AN/-

Sri. M. R. Sathyanarayana Setty v. Smt. K. R. Lakshmamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. M. R. Sathyanarayana Setty v. Smt. K. R. Lakshmamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri M v Keshava Murthy Vs Sri G v Vasanthappa

Smt. Kempamma Vs Smt. Venkatamma

Mr. K K Shekar Vs Mr. K K Sathyanarayana

Mr Arun Anthoni Raj Vs Mr Anthoni Raj

Mr Anjinappa Vs Mr Lakshminarayanappa

Mr. Subbanna Gowda Vs Mr. Ramanna Gowda