P. ANILKUMAR Vs. VIJAYAKUMARI, DAUGHTER OF THANKAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dated, this the 7/3/2024 The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit, O.S. No.941/2010 pending before the Principal Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P9 order, which refused an amendment sought for vide Ext.P8, on the premise that the amendment sought for, would take away an admitted fact in the plaint.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, Life Insurance Corporation. The 1st respondent, though served, is not represented before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the suit was originally filed for declaration of title in respect of the amount scheduled in the plaint, along with a direction to the 2nd defendant, Life Insurance Corporation to disburse the amount to the plaintiff. The petitioner is the husband of one Bindu, who passed away on 27/5/2007. Pursuant to her death, her mother (1st respondent herein and the 1st defendant in the suit) approached the Tahsildar for issuance of a legal heirship certificate. Accordingly, Ext.P4 legal heirship certificate was issued, showing the petitioner and the 1st respondent (husband and the mother respectively of the deceased) as legal heirs. The 1st respondent herein being the nominee, the amounts under the policies in the name of deceased Bindu were disbursed to her. In such circumstances, the suit, O.S. No.54/2008, was filed by the petitioner herein, essentially relying upon Ext.P4 legal heirship certificate, claiming one-half share over the amounts covered by the policies in the name of late Bindu. When the suit was pending before the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara, the 1st respondent/ mother-in-law filed an application for transfer of the said suit to the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram for the reason that the petitioner/plaintiff is a lawyer practising at Neyyattinkara. The same was filed before the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram, whereupon, the files were taken to a lawyer at Thiruvananthapuram. Upon scrutiny by the said lawyer, it was found that the parties belong to Ayyanavar community, coming under the Scheduled Caste, governed by the Makkathayam system of inheritance. Therefore, upon the death of the wife, the sole legal heir will be the husband, going by Sec. 15 of the Hindu Succession Act. There is no quarrel that the petitioner and late Bindu had no children. It is accordingly that Ext.P8 application was filed seeking amendment of the plaint, based on Sec. 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, claiming exclusive rights over the amounts covered by the policies in the name of late Bindu. In the meantime, the transfer was allowed and the transferee court passed the impugned Ext.P9 order holding that the amendment cannot be allowed, since it seeks to retract from an admission made in the plaint, recognising one-half right of the defendant/ mother-in-law. Learned counsel would point out that no objection, whatsoever, was filed to Ext.P8 application for amendment.