BALAMMA Vs. Y R SRINIVAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 5-10-1984 passed by the II Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No. 2074 of 1980. By the said Judgment, the lower court decreed the suit of the plaintiff by declaring that plaintiffs-1 and 2 are the children of late S. Ramaswamy and that they are together entitled to half a share in the Insurance amount, D.C.R.G., arrears of salary or any other amount apart from the petition amount payable on account of the death of S. Ramaswamy. The prayer made for declaration that defendants-1 and 2 are not the wife and daughter of S. Ramaswamy was negatived. Defendants-1 and 2 being aggrieved by that part of Judgment which has gone against them have preferred this appeal. The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal, briefly stated, are as under:

(2.) Plaintiff-3 is the wife of late Ramaswamy who was working in the Department of Agriculture of Government of Karnataka, the marriage having taken place on 27-8-1971 at Chowdeswari Temple, Bangalore. It is also stated that the marriage was solemnized in accordance with the Hindu rites and customs and that out of the said wedlock, the 1st plaintiff was born on 2-7-1973 and the 2nd plaintiff was born on 27-7-1974. It is stated that late Ramaswamy nominated the plaintiffs for purposes of his family pension and other benefits and despite all this, defendants 1 and 2 claiming themselves to be the wife and daughter of late Ramaswamy obtained succession certificate from the District Court, Bangalore in P. & S.C. 118 of 1974 to collect the monies payable to the heirs of late Ramaswamy without any notice to the plaintiffs and after they came to know about it, they sought in P. & S.C. 94 of 1975 the revocation of the grant made in P. & S.C. 118 of 1984, but that petition came to be rejected on the ground that the plaintiffs could agitate their rights elsewhere and that revocation was not the proper remedy. Plaintiffs, therefore, had sought for declaration before the lower court that defendants 1 and 2 are not the wife and daughter of late Ramaswamy but the plaintiffs are entitled to succeed to the assets left by late Ramaswamy despite succession certificate granted in P. & S.C. 118/1974.

(3.) Defendants-1 and 2 resisted the suit of the plaintiffs. Among other things, they contended that plaintiff-3 is not the wife of late Ramaswamy and that plaintiffs-1 and 2 are not the children of late Ramaswamy. They also raised the other contentions which are summarised in para 2 of the Judgment passed by the lower court. On the basis of these pleadings, the lower court has raised the following issued: 1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the children of D-3 and deceased Ramaswamy born out of lawful wedlock? 2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that D-3 is the wife of Ramaswamy? 3) Do the defendants-1 and 2 prove that D-1 is the wife of Ramaswamy and D-2 is their child born out of lawful wedlock? 4) Is the suit valued properly and the court-fee paid is correct? 5) To what reliefs are the parties entitled to? 6) What order and decree? The lower court examined 11 witnesses on behalf of the plaintiffs and two witnesses on behalf of the defendants. The lower court also got marked Exs. P. 1 to P. 33 for the plaintiffs and Exs. D. 1 to D. 18 were got marked for the defendants.