- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3271-DB RFA No. 100033 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100033 OF 2025 (PAR/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SUDHA SINGH W/O ANAND SINGH THAKUR AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE R/O D/O VIRUPAKSHA NEAR BUS STOP, JANATA PLOT, DEVGIRI 581132, TQ AND DIST. HAVERI. 2. RISHAB SINGH S/O ANAND SINGH THAKUR AGE. 3 YEARS, OCC. NIL SINCE MINOR REPT. BY RESPONDENT NO.1 SUDHA SINGH W/O ANAND SINGH THAKUR AGE.32 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE R/O D/O VIRUPAKSHA, NEAR BUS STOP, JANATA PLOT, DEVGIRI 581132, TQ AND DIST. HAVERI. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. A.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. JAYALAKSHMI W/O LAKSHMAN SINGH THAKUR AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE R/O H.NO.200, JAYALAXMI NIVAS, 3RD CROSS, SHEELA COLONY, MANTUR ROAD, HUBBALLI 580020. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Date: 2025.02.27 15:47:27 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3271-DB RFA No. 100033 of 2025 2. MAX LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGD. OFFICE. 419 BHAI MOHAN SINGH NAGAR RAILMAJRA TEHSIL BALACHAUR DIST. NAWANSHAHR, PUNJAB. 3. MAX LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. 5TH FLOOR, OPERATIONS CENTRE, 90-C, UDYOG VIHAR, SECTOR 18, GURUGRAM, 122015, HARYANA, INDIA. 4. BRANCH MANAGER MAX LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH, HUBBALLI, 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR, KALBURGI EMERALD, 1ST MAIN, OPP. ENGLISH GIRLS SCHOOL, HUBBALLI 580030, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GURUDEV I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 OF THE CPC., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE HONBLE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HUBBALLI, IN O.S.NO.06/2023 DATED 02.12.2024 AND TO ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL BY DISMISSING FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1/PLAINTIFF IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3271-DB RFA No. 100033 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 02.12.2024 passed in OS No.06/2023 by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Hubballi. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their ranking before the trial court. Appellants were defendants No.1 and 2, respondent No.1 was the plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 4 were defendant Nos.3 to 5. 3. Brief facts, leading raise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The Plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for partition. It is the case of the plaintiff that one Anand Singh Thakur was the son of the plaintiff and the husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendant No.2. He died on 14.01.2022 leaving behind plaintiff and defendants - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3271-DB RFA No. 100033 of 2025 No.1 and 2 as his legal heirs. During his lifetime he has been insured defendant No.3 with the assured sum of rupees one crore. The plaintiff, after the demise of her son, applied for a legal heirs certificate and obtained a legal heirs certificate from the Tahasildar, Hubballi. She submitted an application to defendant No.4 for claiming the benefit of the deceased Anand Singh Thakur. Defendants No.3 to 5 failed to entertain the claim submitted by the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 was a nominee to the said policy. As such, there was an objection by defendant No.1 objecting not to release the policy amount without her consent. The plaintiff issued a legal notice on 20.05.2022 to defendant No.3. Despite service of notice, defendant No.3 failed to entertain the claim petition. The plaintiff is constrained to file suit for a partition. 4. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement contending that she is the wife of the deceased Anand Singh Thakur. Defendant No.2 is the son of Anand Singh - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3271-DB RFA No. 100033 of 2025 Thakur. It is contended that defendant No.1 is the nominee to the policy purchased by the deceased Anand Singh. It is contended that the plaintiff by suppressing the material fact, obtained the legal heirs certificate from the Tahasildar. Based on the said certificate, the plaintiff had received an amount of Rs.17,50,000/- behind the back of defendants No.1 and 2 from the different insurance companies. It is contended that she alone is entitled to the claim amount insured with the defendants No.3 to 5 i.e., to the extent of rupees one crore. It is contended that the same is required to lead their life. Hence, pray to dismiss the suit against defendants No.1 and 2. 5. Defendants No.3 to 5 filed a written statement contending that the company was in receipt of one duly filled proposal form on 26.10.2021, while filing the said proposal form, deceased Anand Singh Thakur had nominated his wife as a nominee in the said policy. It is contended that as per section 39 of Insurance Act, the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3271-DB RFA No. 100033 of 2025 policy become payable to the nominee as appointed under the policy. Hence, pray to dismiss the suit against defendants No.4 and 5. 6. The trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that she has got 1/3rd share in the insurance claim amount as alleged? 2. Whether the suit is not properly valued as alleged? 3. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that she alone is entitled for the policy claim amount as alleged? 4. To what reliefs the parties to the suit are entitled to? 5. What order or decree? 7. The plaintiff, to substantiate her case examined herself as PW1 and marked 6 documents as Ex.P1 to P6. On the other hand, defendant No.1 was examined as DW1 and marked seven documents as EX.D1 to D7. After recording the evidence, hearing on both sides, and on assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the trial court has answered issue No.1 in the affirmative, issue - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3271-DB RFA No. 100033 of 2025 No.2 properly valued, issue No.3 in the negative, Issue No.4 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed. It is declared that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share in the policy claim amount. The trial court directed the office to release 1/3 share in the deposited amount, in favour of the plaintiff with the proper identification through e-payment and further directed the office to release the remaining amount in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 through e-payment with accrued interest. Defendants No.1 and 2 aggrieved by the impugned judgment filed this Regular First Appeal. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the defendants No.1 and 2 and learned counsel for the plaintiff. 9. Learned counsel for defendants No.1 and 2 submits that defendant No.1 is the wife of the deceased Anand Singh Thakur and defendant No.2 is the son of the deceased Anand Singh Thakur. During his lifetime, he purchased an insurance policy and defendant No.1 was appointed as a nominee. He submitted that defendants - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3271-DB RFA No. 100033 of 2025 No.1 and 2 are only entitled to the policy amount, and the plaintiff has no right to claim a share in the policy amount. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the appeal. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff is the mother of the deceased Anand Singh. After her son’s demise, she becomes a Class-I heir and she is entitled to equal share with that of defendants No.1 and 2. He submits that defendant No.1 is the nominee. She is entitled to receive the policy amount on behalf of the family members and she alone does not have any right to keep the policy amount with her. Hence, he submits that the trial Court placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shakti Yezdani V.Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar reported in (2024) 4 SCC 642 has rightly passed the impugned judgment. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is just and proper and do not call for any interference. Hence, on these grounds prays to dismiss the appeal. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3271-DB RFA No. 100033 of 2025 11. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. 12. The points that arose for our consideration are as follows: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she has got 1/3 share in the insurance amount claimed? 2. Whether defendants No.1 and 2 proves that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is perverse and arbitrary? 3. What order or decree? Point No.1:- 13. The plaintiff, to substantiate her case, she examined herself as PW1, and deposed that Anand Singh was her son. He had purchased an insurance policy. He died, leaving behind him the plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2. She deposed that the plaintiff, being a mother, succeeded to the estate of the deceased Anand Singh, and she is a Class-I legal heir. Hence, the plaintiff has - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3271-DB RFA No. 100033 of 2025 submitted a claim form before defendants No.3 to 5, but defendant No.1 objected for releasing to release the 1/3 share of the claim amount, to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is constrained to file a suit for partition in the insurance claim amount. To prove that the deceased Anand Singh had purchase a policy, the plaintiff produced, the copy of the insurance policy, marked as Ex.P1, Ex.P2 is the death certificate of Anand Singh Thakur who died on 14.01.2022. Ex.P3 is the survival family members certificate. Ex.P.4 is the office copy of the legal notice dated 20.05.2022, issued to the insurance company to release 1/3 share of the insurance claim amount. Ex.P.5 is the postal acknowledgement. Ex.P6 is the endorsement. 14. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 was examined as DW1. She has reiterated the written statement averments in the examination in chief and she has deposed that defendants No.1 and 2 alone are entitled to the insurance claim amount, and the plaintiff had already withdrawn Rs.17,50,000/- from the other insurance companies. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3271-DB RFA No. 100033 of 2025 Hence, she is not entitled to claim any share as claimed in the suit and to prove her defense, she has produced documents, Ex.D1-certificate of registration of marriage of defendant No.1 with deceased Anand Singh Thakur. Exhibit D2 is the online copy of the letter issued by defendant No.4 company. Exhibit D3 is the mutual fund consolidated account statement. Exhibit D4 is the Adhar card of the deceased Anand Singh Thakur. Ex.D5 and D6 are Adhar cards of defendants No.1 and 2. Exhibit D7 is the insurance policy. During the course of cross examination, DW1 admitted the relationship of the plaintiff with the deceased Anand Singh Thakur. The only defense of defendants No.1 and 2 is that defendant No.1 being the nominee, alone, is entitled to the said claim amount. Admittedly, the plaintiff being a mother, she is a Class-I legal heir, she is equally entitled to the estate of the deceased Anand Singh Thakur, along with defendants No.1 and defendant No.2. The trial Court placing the reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shakti Yezdani (stated supra) recorded a finding - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3271-DB RFA No. 100033 of 2025 that the deceased has named the defendant No.1 as a nominee for the insurance policy purchased from D3, and the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, aptly applicable to the case on hand and rightly granted a 1/3 share in the policy claim amount. The plaintiff being the mother, is entitled to equal share. In view of the above discussion, we answer point No.1 in the affirmative. POINT NO.2: 15. The plaintiff being a mother, and she is a class- I heir of the deceased Anand Singh Thakur, along with defendants No.1 and 2. Admittedly, Anand Singh had an insurance policy worth rupees one crore. The deceased Anand Singh named defendant No.1 as the nominee. Though, defendants No.1 and 2 have taken defense in the written statement that, the plaintiff has withdrawn Rs.17,50,000/- from the other insurance companies but to prove the defense the defendants have not produced any record to show that, the plaintiff has withdrawn an - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3271-DB RFA No. 100033 of 2025 amount of Rs.17,50,000/- from the other insurance companies. In the absence of records, the trial court was justified in passing the impugned judgment. We do not find any error in the impugned judgment, and we concur with the judgment passed by the trial Court. 16. In view of the above discussions, we answer point No.2 in the negative. Point No.3:- 17. As we answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff, we proceed to pass the following : ORDER The Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree passed by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubbali in OS No.06/2023 dated 02.12.2024 is hereby confirmed. No order as to the costs. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3271-DB RFA No. 100033 of 2025 In view of the disposal of the appeal, IA No.1/2025 does not survive for consideration, and accordingly, is disposed of. The trial court is directed to keep the 1/3 share of defendant No.2 in the fixed deposit in any nationalized bank until he attains the age of majority. Defendant No.1 is permitted to withdraw the interest quarterly for the welfare of defendant No.2. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE HMB LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 31