Partly allowed

Jaseentha v. Valsa and Others

Kerala HC4 Sept 2012CRP/455/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision petition, the High Court affirmed the subordinate court's order, holding the court functus officio on the entitlement claim, and directed deposit of insurance money for three years while allowing the second defendant to file a separate suit.

What did the court decide?

The order of the court below was affirmed subject to a reservation; the money shall be deposited in a Nationalised Bank for three years.

Jaseentha Vs Valsa and Others — Succession and Inheritance | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/13TH BHADRA 1934

¶5

CRP.No. 455 of 2010 ( ) ----------------------OS.167/2003 of PRL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR

¶6

REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶7

JASEENTHA,W/O.KUDILIPURATH LATE JOHN, D/O.MURINGATHERY VARAPPAN,PONNORE DESOM EDAKALATHUR VILLAGE,THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. VALSA, PUTHUR VEETTIL,

¶11

VIYYUR VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 010.

¶12

2. JILMON, S/O.IST RESPONDENT, DO. DO.

¶13

3. SHEEJA, D/O.IST RESPONDENT, DO. DO.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SREEJITH

¶15

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

SCL.

¶17

V.CHITAMBARESH,J.

¶18

= = = = = = = = = = =

¶19

C.R.P No.455 of 2010

¶20

= = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = Dated this the 4^th day of September, 2012

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

O.S No.167/2003 on the file of the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge of Thrissur was filed by the widow and two children of one Mr.John seeking the following reliefs:

¶23

i) For a prohibitory injunction restraining the first defendant Life Insurance Corporation of India from disbursing the amounts due under the LIC Policy taken by deceased John in favour of the second defendant.

¶24

ii) For a manadatory injunction directing the first defendant Life Insurance Corporation to disburse the amounts due under the LIC Policy to the plaintiffs exclusively.

¶25

The plaintiffs though had paid 1/10^th of the total court fee payable subsequently applied for leave to sue as informa pauperis. Leave was however not granted and consequently the suit itself was rejected for non payment of the balance court fee.

¶26

The second defendant who claims to be the legally wedded wife of Mr.John after the dissolution of his first marriage

¶27

C.R.P No.455 of 2010 2

¶28

filed I.A No.2536/2009 in the suit already disposed of. The second defendant contended that the money deposited by the first defendant Life Insurance Corporation in Court is lying idle and should be disbursed to her. She raised the following contentions in support of her claim for money.

¶29

i) She is the second wife of the deceased John.

¶30

ii) She is a legatee under the Will executed by Mr.John.

¶31

Iii) She is a nominee in the Life Insurance Policy of Mr. John.

¶32

All these are matters to be agitated in an independent suit wherein the Will has to be properly proved as per law. The mere fact that the second defendant is also a nominee as per the LIC Policy will not clothe her with the exclusive right over the amounts due under the LIC Policy.

¶33

The Court of the Subordinate Judge of Thrissur has

¶34

become functus officio as far as the adjudication of the entitlement of the second defendant to draw the money. The money remitted by the Life Insurance Corporation shall be deposited in a Nationalised Bank for a further period of three years. Necessary follow up action shall be taken by the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Thrissur on motion made by any of the

¶35

C.R.P No.455 of 2010

¶36

¶37

parties. The second defendant/petitioner is at liberty to file a separate suit to agitate her claim. Needless to say that the original Will alleged to be in favour of the second defendant and produced in court shall be returned to her.

¶38

The order of the court below is affirmed subject to the above reservation. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.

¶39

V.CHITAMBARESH. JUDGE

¶40

smm

¶41

C.R.P No.455 of 2010 4

Jaseentha v. Valsa and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaseentha v. Valsa and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rabia Vs Thomas Devassia

Mani Vs Moncy Daniel

Kuriakose Vs Tessy Joseph

Muhammed Vs Pattarumadathil Bappu

Kurian P.Koshy Vs M.Chandran

Murali Vs Cleetus