Partly allowed

LIC of India v. Kum Ponnaganti Sumedha Reddy

Karnataka HC22 Aug 2022MFA/4398/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, in this miscellaneous first appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, held that the insurance companies issuing the policies were necessary parties which the Trial Court failed to implead. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for a fresh enquiry, with a direction to deposit the sum assured if the matter is not di

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the Trial Court. The appellants were directed to deposit the sum assured if the matter is not disposed of within three months.

LIC of India Vs Kum Ponnaganti Sumedha Reddy — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M.JOSHI

¶7

M.F.A.No.4398 of 2020(ISA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

LIC OF INDIA

¶10

REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY THE MANAGER (LEGAL & HPF) DIVISIONAL OFFICE-I, J.C.ROAD,

¶11

BANGALORE-560 002.

¶12

THE MANAGER - CLAIMS DEPARTMENT

¶13

LIC OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE-II, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 038.

¶14

...APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI. PADMANABHA V. MAHALE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI R.G. BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND

¶17

KUM. PONNAGANTI SUMEDHA REDDY ALLEGED TO BE THE DAUGHTER OF LATE PONNAGANTI SATISH REDDY ALLEGED TO BE

¶18

¶19

@ KAUSHIK PUNITHA SHARMA, R/AT NO.187, 302, 3RD FLOOR, 10TH MAIN, 22ND CROSS, NEAR HDFC BANK, SECTOR-7, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 102.

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SRI.V.S BIJU, ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 384 OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.03.2018 PASSED IN P & SC.NO.491/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 372 OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT.

¶23

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, C.M.JOSHI J. , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under

¶26

Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, against order dated 27.03.2018 passed in P & SC No.491/2017 by the learned XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, allowing the petition filed under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act.

¶27

¶28

2. The facts in brief are that:

¶29

The respondent claiming herself to be the

¶30

daughter of late Ponnaganti Satish Reddy, approached

¶31

the Trial Court under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, seeking grant of Succession Certificate in her favour in respect of schedule insurance policies held in favour of Ponnaganti Satish Reddy @ Koushik Punitha Sharma. It was stated in the said petition that the respondent-Sumedha Reddy is the daughter of Ponnaganti Satish Reddy and his wife Vidyulatha. Thereafter, the said Ponnaganti Satish Reddy has changed his name as Koushik Punitha Sharma and got married to one Shreelatha and out of the said wedlock

¶32

he had daughter by name Sriraksha and son by name Kaustubha. It was stated that the said Ponnaganti Satish Reddy had taken out two life insurance policies in his name and the sum assured was Rs.2,15,00,000/- from the appellants herein i.e. LIC of

¶33

¶34

India and another Policy for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/from ICICI Lombard Insurance.

¶35

The said Ponnaganti Satish Reddy committed

¶36

suicide by killing his wife Shreelatha and the two children born to her on 28-3-2014. Later, the mother of the respondent i.e. Vidyulatha, also died due to terminal illness on 8-5-2014. Therefore, the respondent sought Succession Certificate in her favour in respect of the said insurance polices.

¶37

The Trial Court on publishing the required

¶38

notice under Section 373 of the Indian Succession Act, in Samyuktha Karnataka dated 8-2-2018, proceeded with the enquiry and allowed the petition and issued the Succession Certificate as prayed for. During the

¶39

course of the enquiry, Exs.P1 to P14 were marked.

¶40

¶41

Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants

¶42

who had issued the policy for Rs.2,15,00,000/- have approached this Court in this appeal.

¶43

The grounds urged before this Court are that,

¶44

though the respondent was well within the knowledge that the schedule debts were from the appellants and ICICI Lombard, they were not made parties in the petition for Succession Certificate and therefore, they were kept in dark about the claim made by the respondent- Sumedha Reddy.

¶45

The appellants also contended that the deceased Ponnaganti Satish Reddy had appointed his

¶46

wife Shreelatha as a nominee under the Policies and the records reveal that the petitioner claims herself to be the daughter of deceased Ponnaganti Satish Reddy and his first wife P. Vidyulatha. It was contended that there is no record which were produced before the

¶47

¶48

Trial Court showing that the first marriage had been annulled under due course of law and later the deceased Ponnaganti Satish Reddy had married Shreelatha. There is no mention that whether any alimony was paid to the first wife or not and therefore, there are some intriguing circumstances which raise doubt about the claim made by the respondentSumedha Reddy. Therefore, it is contended that it was necessary that the schedule debtors of deceased Ponnaganti Satish Reddy were also necessary parties before the Trial Court while the enquiry was conducted by it. Moreover, the change of the name from 'Ponnaganti Satish Reddy' to 'Koushik Punitha

¶49

Sharma', son of Chandra Sharma is also doubtful.

¶50

We have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶51

¶52

We have also interacted with the respondent-

¶53

Sumedha Reddy, who is present before the Court and she submits that she is living on the assets of her deceased father and mother and she has no other independent income.

¶54

It is relevant to note that the impugned

¶55

order do not refer to the schedule debtors i.e. LIC of India and ICICI Lombard and do not delve upon whether they were necessary parties to the petition or not. Obviously, the Succession Certificate was sought on the basis of the request made by the appellant to obtain the Succession Certificate. When serious allegations are raised by the appellants herein about the identity of Ponnaganti Satish Reddy and Koushik Punitha Sharma, we find that the appellants should have been made parties before the Trial Court. The rule of audi - altarem -partem is the basis for any judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding. When the

¶56

¶57

appellants are asked to pay the money under the policy, and the name of the insured is shown as Ponnaganti Satish Reddy and nowhere it was disclosed to the appellants that he had changed the name as 'Koushik Punitha Sharma', it was essential that the appellants should also have been heard by the Trial Court.

¶58

Moreover, the documents which were perused by the Trial Court, except Ex.P9, do not show the relationship between the respondent and the deceased Ponnaganti Satish Reddy. The chargesheet filed against the deceased by the police states that Sathish Reddy and Koushik Sharma are one and the same. Under these circumstances, we are persuaded to accept the contention of the appellants that the appellants should have been arrayed as the respondents before the Trial Court. Counsel for the respondent has fairly submitted that the appellants

¶59

¶60

were not made parties before the Trial Court. He is unable to explain the reasons for the same. Therefore, we find that the matter needs to be remanded to the Trial Court with liberty to the appellants herein to putforth the material in support of their contentions, if any.

¶61

The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has submitted that, appellants are ready to deposit the sum assured before the Trial Court within a specified period.

¶62

The said submission is taken on record.

¶63

Hence, the appeal is liable to be disposed of

¶64

with following directions. Therefore, we pass the following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

(i) The appeal is partly allowed.

¶67

(ii) The impugned order of learned XIX

¶68

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,

¶69

¶70

Bengaluru in P & SC No. 491/2017 dated 27-3-2018, is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Trial Court, on condition that the appellants shall deposit the sum assured before the Trial Court, if

¶71

the matter is not decided within a period of three months, so that, the amount earns interest.

¶72

(iii) The Trial Court is directed to act accordingly and shall make all endeavors to dispose of the matter within three months from the date of the appearance of the parties before the Trial Court.

¶73

(iv) Both the parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 19-09-2022 .

¶74

(v) We also direct that the interest accrued may be released to the respondent herein,

¶75

¶76

once in three months in the event the petition is not disposed off within three months, commencing from 19-09-2022.

¶77

In view of disposal of the main appeal, all

¶78

pending IAs stand disposed of.

¶79

Sd/JUDGE

¶80

Sd/JUDGE

¶81

tsn*

LIC of India v. Kum Ponnaganti Sumedha Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

LIC of India v. Kum Ponnaganti Sumedha Reddy

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. G.M. Pramod Vs Smt. Sandhya .B

Smt Vidyalakshmi Vs Sri.Mahadeva M

M/S Naris Realtors Company Vs Beml Employees House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd.

M/S Sorting Hat Technologies Private Limited Vs Vishal Vivek Tiwari

Mithun M S Vs Smt Bhavana G

Srinivasa T Vs the State of Karnataka