- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5700 CRP No. 100013 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100013 OF 2021 (-) BETWEEN: 1. LEELABAI @ RENUKA W/O. ARJUN PARABAT, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NEAR VEERABHADRA TEMPLE, SHAHAPURPETHA, GADAG -582101, TQ/DIST: GADAG. 2. MANJULA D/O. ARJUN PARABAT, D/O. ARJUN PARABAT, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NEAR VEERABHADRA TEMPLE, SHAHAPURPETHA, GADAG-582101, TQ/DIST: GADAG. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PUTALABAI D/O. ANADAPPA PARABAT, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MATHAD ROAD, SHIRAHATTI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG. 2. RENUKA W/O. NINGAPPA THORAT, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BIJJUR, SHIRAHATTI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5700 CRP No. 100013 of 2021 3. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, RBO REGION 6, HUBBALLI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 4. THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA MULAGUND NAKA BRANCH, GADAG – 582101, TQ/DIST: GADAG. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SADIQ N. GOODWALA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4; R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.01.2021 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, LAXMESHWAR, SITTING AT SHIRAHATTI IN O.S. NO.68/2018 ON INTERIM APPLICATION IN I.A.NO.VII FILED BY THE PETITIONERS/DEFENDANT NO.4 AND 5 AND ALLOW THE INTERIM APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 (D) OF R/W. SEC.151 OF CPC SEEKING REJECTION OF THE PLAINT IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5700 CRP No. 100013 of 2021 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by defendant No.5 in O.S.No.68/2018 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Laxmeshwar, sitting at Shirahatti (for short “the Trial Court”) assailing the order dated 02.01.2021 on I.A.No.7 filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that her brother-Arjun was working as head messenger in State Bank of India, Mulagund Naka Branch, Gadag and he died on 09.09.2016. It is stated that the said Arjun had married Smt.Leelabai (defendant No.1) on 08.06.1991 and on account of incompatibility in the matrimonial home, wife of said Arjuna was residing separately and she has claimed maintenance from said Arjuna. It is also stated that the defendant No.1-Smt. Leelabai w/o. Arjun had filed M.C.No.41/2003 which came to be allowed on 20.06.2005 and same has attained finality. Hence, it is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was looking after her brother-Arjun, who died on 09.09.2016 and the said Arjun has executed registered Will in respect of his properties and service - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5700 CRP No. 100013 of 2021 benefits in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and therefore, the plaintiff has filed suit in O.S.No.68/2018 seeking declaration that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are the legal representatives of deceased-Arjun and also entitled for the estate of the deceased. 4. On service of notice, the defendant No.1 entered appearance and filed detailed written statement countering the allegation made in the plaint. It is the case of the defendant that, the defendant no.1 is entitled to succeed to the estate of deceased as defendant No.1 is the nominee in the service records of the deceased and that apart, also disputes the judgment and decree in M.C.No.41/2003. Hence, defendant No.1 has sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. Further, the defendant No.1 has filed application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is not maintainable as the prayer made in the plaint would not enure to the benefit of the plaintiff on account of service benefits of the deceased cannot be bequeathed and also stated that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands in respect of judgment - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5700 CRP No. 100013 of 2021 in M.C.No.41/2003 and accordingly sought for rejection of the plaint. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its order dated 02.01.2021 dismissed I.A.No.7 filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed. 6. I have heard Sri.Shriharsh A Neelopant, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Sadiq N Goodwala, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri. K.L.Patil and Sri. S.S.Beturmath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 and 4. 7. It is contended by Sri. Shriharsh A Neelopant learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Trial Court has committed an error in dismissing he I.A.No.7 without considering the fact that the employee of any public service is not entitled to make testamentary disposition of his service benefits and therefore, the Trial Court has committed an error in not considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jodh Singh v. Union of India and another1 and also in the case of Smt. Violet Issac And Others v. 1 1980 AIR 2081 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5700 CRP No. 100013 of 2021 Union of India and others2 and accordingly sought for interference of this Court. 8. It is also the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the plaintiff herself has forged the signature of defendant No.1 in the proceedings in M.C.No.41/2003 and the same was questioned before this Court in MFA No.100806/2014, which came to be allowed on 03.12.2018 and therefore, he contended that the plaint itself is not maintainable. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Trial Court and submitted that since the bequeath has been made in favour of the plaintiff as well as defendant No.1 and same has to be accepted and accordingly sought for dismissal of the petition. 10. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff has filed suit claiming service benefits of deceased- Arjun along with defendant No.1. The entire case of the plaintiff 2 (1991) 1 SCC 725 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5700 CRP No. 100013 of 2021 in the plaint revolves around the registered Will dated 29.05.2014 said to have been made by the deceased in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No.1. It is to be noted that the defendant No.1 is the wife of deceased-Arjun S/o. Anandappa Prabat . Taking into consideration the declaration of law made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases referred to above, it is well settled principle of law that an employee of any public service is not entitled to make a Will insofar as his service benefits are concerned and therefore, taking into consideration the declaration of law mad by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that the Trial Court has committed an error in dismissing I.A.No.7. 11. Nextly, considering the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein, I have carefully examined the judgment of this Court in MFA No.100806/2014 disposed of on 03.12.2018 filed by the defendant No.1 in O.S.No.68/2018 against her husband-Arjun. This Court, after considering the material on record, had interfered with the order of dissolution of marriage by the Trial Court in M.C.No.41/2003 by allowing the appeal filed by the defendant No.1. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5700 CRP No. 100013 of 2021 plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and that apart, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above, the service benefits of late Arjun S/o. Anandappa Prabat shall go to his legal heirs viz., wife of the deceased-defendant No.1 in O.S.No.68/2018. The said aspect of the matter was not considered by the Trial Court while considering the application filed by the petitioner herein under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER i) The revision petition is allowed. ii) The order dated order dated 02.01.2021 on I.A.No.7 in O.S.No.68/2018 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Laxmeshwar, sitting at Shirahatti is hereby set aside and I.A.No.7 filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) to (d) read with Section 151 of CPC is hereby allowed. iii) The plaint in O.S.No.68/2018 is rejected. iv) In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5700 CRP No. 100013 of 2021 survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE YAN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29