- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35542 MFA No. 3856 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3856 OF 2022 (ISA) BETWEEN: 1. SRI N. PRATHAP BABU RAO S/O LATE U NARASINGA RAO AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.9-7-680/390 MATHA PITRU KRUPA 2ND CROSS B T PATILNAGAR, KOPPAL3583 231. 2. SRI M. SATHYA NARAYANA RAO S/O LATE U NARASINGA RAO AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.29/19, GURU KRUPA GANESH TEMPLE STREET NEAR RADIO PARK, COWL BAZAAR BELLARY -583102. 3. MISS. N SAVITHRI BAI D/O LATE U. NARASINGA RAO AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.1346, 1ST FLOOR 26TH MAIN, 24TH CROSS, NEAR BDA COMPLEX BSK 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 070. 4. SRI NARASINGA RAO RAMESH S/O LATE U. NARASINGA RAO AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.803, VENKATESH SERENITY, NEAR DSK VISWA DHAYRI GAON, PUNE-411 041. Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35542 MFA No. 3856 of 2022 5. DR. N. GAYATHRI BAI D/O LATE U. NARASINGA RAO AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.51/52, SAVITHA RESIDENCY, 1ST CROSS BANAJIRINAGAR, BSK 3RD STAGE BENGALURU-560 070. 6. MISS. N. ANURADHA D/O LATE U. NARASINGA RAO AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 7. SRI N. RAGHAVENDRA MURTHY S/O LATE U. NARASINGA RAO AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS APPELLANT NOS.6 AND 7 ARE R/AT NO.1346, 1ST FLOOR 26TH MAIN, 24TH CROSS NEAR BDA COMPLEX BSK 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 070. &APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SUDHAKAR G.V., ADVOCATE AND SRI. LOKESH L.N., ADVOCATE) AND: THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER SUB-REGIONAL OFFICE, PEENYA NO.62, 1ST MAIN, MEI ROAD 3RD CROSS, INDUSTRIAL SUBRUB, YESHWANTHAPURA 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 002. &RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SARAVANA P., ADVOCATE AND SMT. NANDITA HALDIPUR, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 384 OF INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.03.2022 PASSED IN P AND S.C.NO.191/2020 ON THE FILE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35542 MFA No. 3856 of 2022 OF THE LXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-65), DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 372 OF INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The petitioners have preferred this appeal calling in question the order dated 21.03.2022 passed by theLXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in P&SC No.191/2020, thereby, the petition filed is dismissed for the reason that the appellants/petitioners have not produced documents showing the petitioners' are made as nominees. 2. The appellants/petitioners claiming to be the legal heirs of deceased N.Srinivas Murthy who was serving as Research Assistant in Kemwell Biopharma Private Ltd. (now company named as 8Recipharma Pharma Service Private Ltd.,9) and is a subscriber of family pension. It is stated that the said deceased N.Srinivas Murthy died unmarried. Therefore, the petitioners being Class-II legal - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35542 MFA No. 3856 of 2022 heirs have filed petition under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short 8the Act9) for issuance of succession certificate in favour of petitioner No.3 as other petitioners have stated no objection to release family pension to the petitioner No.3/appellant No.3. 3. The District Court has dismissed the petition on the reason that the petitioners have not produced any evidence to show that one of the petitioners was made as nominee for family pension. Therefore, on this reason the petition was dismissed. 4. Being aggrieved by this the petitioners have preferred the present appeal and the learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners has submitted that now in the appeal the appellants have produced additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC by showing the appellant No.3 is made as nominee to receive the family pension. Therefore, this met with the requirements to release the family pension. Hence, prays to allow the appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35542 MFA No. 3856 of 2022 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/authorities submitted that before the trial court there is no evidence produced showing the nominee. Hence, justified the order passed by the District Court. 6. Upon hearing the learned counsels for both parties the following points arise for consideration: (i) Whether under the facts and circumstances involved in the case the appellants/petitioners are entitled for issuance of Succession Certificate? (ii) Whether under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the order passed by the District Court requires interference by this Court? 7. The appellants are claiming to be the legal heirs of deceased N.Srinivas Murthy, who died unmarried while he was working as Research Assistant in the above stated firm. Therefore, filed petition for claiming a benefit of family pension made by the deceased. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35542 MFA No. 3856 of 2022 8. The District Court has dismissed the petition on the reason that there is no evidence regarding nomination being made and as per Section 2(g) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, under the definition of 8family9 only husband, wife and children are considered as a 8family9 and therefore, as per Section 2(g) definition the appellants are not coming within the definition of family. Therefore, rejected the application filed by the petitioners. 9. There is no rival claim by the respondent/authority that the appellants/petitioners are not legal heirs of the deceased. Making nomination is for the purpose of release/disburse the benefit of scheme to the legal heirs/nominees without the authority withholding the said benefits. Therefore, making nomination is primarily for releasing the benefits made by the deceased. Though the appellants may not be the Class-I legal heirs, but being brothers/sisters of the deceased are Class-II - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35542 MFA No. 3856 of 2022 legal heirs as per the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 10. The appellants have produced an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC for production of additional documents in which the appellant No.3 is shown as nominee. It is stated that other appellants does not have objection for the appellant No.3 to get the benefit of family pension on account of death of the deceased N.Srinivasa Murthy. Therefore, this additional documentary evidence is considered and is allowed and it is held that the appellants have proved that the appellant No.3 is made as nominee in the family pension benefit scheme. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, I answer Point Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative. 11. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35542 MFA No. 3856 of 2022 (ii) The order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the LXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in P&SC No.191/2020, is set aside. (iii) Issue Succession Certificate to the appellant No.3 and respondent/authority is directed to release/disburse the family pension to the appellant No.3. (iv) The appellant No.3 is entitled to receive the family pension from the respondent/authority as per law. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE DR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43