- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29404 RSA No. 230 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 230 OF 2015 (DEC) BETWEEN: K ANJANEYA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O KARIBASAPPA, KUNDUR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VINAYA KEERTHY M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O CHANNABASAPPA, KATTALAGERE VILLAGE, CHANAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARECH CENTRE, KATTALAGERE VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213. 3. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, GANDHI AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE CENTRE (GKVK), YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064. Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29404 RSA No. 230 of 2015 4. THE MANAGER, CANARA BANK, NITTUVALLI BRANCH, BASAVASADANA BLDG, DAVANAGERE - 577 213. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.L.VENKATARAMA REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SRI.S.K.M.SHETTY., ADVOCATE FOR R-4; R-1 AND R-2 SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 R/W ORDER XLII OF CPC, 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.11.2014 PASSED IN RA NO.19/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, CHANNAGIRI ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.01.2013, PASSED IN OS NO. 688/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC CHANNAGIRI. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT In this appeal, plaintiff is assailing the judgment and decree dated 17.11.2014 passed in RA No.19/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC at Channagiri, allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 22.01.2013 passed in OS No.688/2007 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC (Junior Division) Channagiri, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29404 RSA No. 230 of 2015 2. For the sake convenience, parties are referred as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff is the son of Karibasappa and Smt.S.Laxmamma. It is further stated that, the father of the plaintiff - Karibasappa died long back and mother of the plaintiff - Smt.S.Laxmamma died on 17.06.2006. It is further stated that the mother of the plaintiff- Smt.S.Laxmamma was working as a D-Group employee under defendant Nos.1 and 2 Department. It is further stated that, after the demise of the mother of the plaintiff - Smt.S.Laxmamma, Plaintiff has filed an application to the defendant-authorities seeking benefits accrued to the interest of the deceased mother and defendant Nos.1 and 2 refused to release the benefits to the plaintiff and issued an endorsement dated 18.08.2007 to the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has filed OS No. 688/2007 on the file of the Trial Court, seeking relief of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29404 RSA No. 230 of 2015 declaration that the plaintiff is entitled for death benefits of deceased Smt.S.Laxmamma. 4. After service of notice, defendant Nos.1 to 3 entered appearance. However, defendant No. 1 has filed written statement stating that, the deceased Smt.S.Laxmamma was working as D-Group employee in Kattalagare Agricultural Research Center. It is also stated, that the deceased had not furnished information regarding her marriage with anyone and on the other hand when she joined as D-Group employee during 1992, she furnished the address as Smt.S.Laxmamma D/o. Ramappa, resident of Kunduru Village. It is also stated in the written statement that, the deceased has nominated one Chandrappa of Kunduru Village, as her son to be entitled for the retiral benefits. Hence, it is the case of the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 that the plaintiff has to establish his right in respect of claiming the retiral benefits of deceased Smt.S.Laxmamma. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29404 RSA No. 230 of 2015 5. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant No. 4 has filed an application to implead in the suit and accordingly the said application came to be allowed on 06.08.2009. It is the case of defendant No.4 that defendant No.4 is the son of Smt.S.Laxmamma and as such the said Smt.S.Laxmamma had nominated defendant No.4 in her service records for her retiral benefits from the department and accordingly, it is the case of defendant No. 4 that he is entitled for the monetary benefits of the deceased Smt.S.Laxmamma and not the plaintiff and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit. 6. Based on the pleadings on record, the Trial Court framed the issues and additional issues for its consideration. 7. In order to prove their case, plaintiff has examined three witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and got marked 23 documents as Exhibits P1 to P23. Defendant No.4 has examined two witnesses as DW.1 and DW.2 and got - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29404 RSA No. 230 of 2015 marked 7 documents and same were marked as Exhibit D1 to D7. 8. The Trial Court after considering the material on record by its judgment and decree dated 22.01.2013, decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff is entitled for death benefits of deceased Smt.S.Laxmamma from defendant Nos.1 and 2. Feeling aggrieved by the same, defendant No.4 has preferred RA No. 19/2013 before the First Appellate Court and same was resisted by the respondents therein. The First Appellate Court after re-appreciating the material on record by its judgment and decree dated 17.11.2014, allowed the appeal, consequently, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in OS No. 688/2007. Accordingly, dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal. 9. I have heard, Sri.Vinay Keerthy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri.L.Venkatarama - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29404 RSA No. 230 of 2015 Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and Sri.S.K.M.Sheety, learned counsel for respondent No.4, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are served and remained absent. 10. This Court vide order dated 17.08.2023 formulated the following substantial questions of law: 1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the first appellate Court has committed an error in disbelieving the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, who are the brother and sister of Smt.Lakshmamma that they have deposed that plaintiff is the only son of Smt.Lakshmamma? 2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the first appellate Court committed an error in passing the impugned judgment without considering the documentary evidence placed on record? 3) Whether the first appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court? 11. Sri.Vinay Keerthy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the Trial Court after appreciating the material on record rightly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, however, the First Appellate Court on erroneous conception of law has reversed the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29404 RSA No. 230 of 2015 judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court which requires to be interfered with in this appeal. He further contended that, the plaintiff is the son of Smt.S.Laxmamma and Karibasappa. Karibasappa died long ago and thereafter, Smt.S.Laxmamma died on 17.06.2006 and immediately thereafter, the plaintiff has filed a suit seeking retiral benefits of the deceased Smt.S.Laxmamma. He further invited the attention of the Court to the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3, who are the brother and sister of the deceased Smt.S.Laxmamma respectively and contended that, as the plaintiff has proved the relationship with his mother - deceased Smt.S.Laxmamma and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for retrial benefits of deceased Smt.S.Laxmamma and accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. 12. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 served and remained absent. Per contra, Sri.L.Venkatarama Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submitted that, the plaintiff entitled for the retiral benefits, if the plaintiff - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29404 RSA No. 230 of 2015 succeeds in this appeal. Accordingly, he sought for disposal of the appeal. 13. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and careful consideration of the finding recorded by the Trial Court would indicate that, the plaintiff claims to be the son of Karibasappa and Smt.S.Laxmamma. Karibasappa is predeceased by Smt.S.Laxmamma. Smt.S.Laxmamma died on 17.06.2006. On careful consideration of the Genealogical tree produced at Exhibit P1, would indicate that the Karibasappa and Smt.S.Laxmamma are the parents of the plaintiff. 14. The perusal of Exhibit P2 would indicate that the deceased Smt.S.Laxmamma died on 17.06.2006 and name of one Ramappa has been shown as the father. It is also forthcoming from the Exhibit P3 issued by the Office of the Tahsildar, Honnali Taluk, wherein the certification has been given that the plaintiff is the son of deceased - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29404 RSA No. 230 of 2015 Smt.S.Laxmamma. The plaintiff has also produced the resident certificate at Exhibit P4. In order to establish the relationship with his father - Karibasappa, the plaintiff has produced the Transfer Certificate issued by the Government Higher Primary School, Kunduru, Honnali Taluk, Davanagere District. 15. In the backdrop of these aspects, I have carefully considered the evidence of the independent witnesses namely PW.2 and PW.3. PW.2 is the brother of deceased Smt.S.Laxmamma (Maternal uncle of the plaintiff). In the cross-examination, PW.2 deposed that, Smt.S.Laxmamma was married to Karibasappa and denied, the relationship with one Channabasappa claimed to be the father of defendant No.4; respondent No.1 herein. PW.3 is the sister of the deceased Smt.S.Laxmamma, she deposed that, the plaintiff is the son of deceased Smt.S.Laxmamma. The said Smt.S.Laxmamma was residing in the camp belonging to defendant Nos.1 and 2 - Agricultural Department. It is also - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29404 RSA No. 230 of 2015 forthcoming from the cross-examination of PW.3 that, the PW.3 has denied, the relationship between defendant No.4 with the deceased Smt.S.Laxmamma. 16. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the aforementioned aspects, the Trial Court after considering the material on record, rightly arrived at the conclusion that, the plaintiff is the son of deceased Smt.S.Laxmamma and Karibasappa. Though, the records would indicate that, the name of one Ramappa has been shown in the death certificate of deceased Smt.S.Laxmamma, it is not disputed that the said Ramappa is the father of the deceased Smt.S.Laxmamma. 17. It is also to be noted that, though the deceased Smt.S.Laxmamma has entered the name of defendant No.4 in the service record as a nominee, however, mere mentioning the name of defendant No.4 as a nominee in the service record, would not enure to the benefit of defendant No.4 to claim the retiral benefits of deceased - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29404 RSA No. 230 of 2015 Smt.S.Laxmamma, unless defendant No.4 established his relationship with the deceased Smt.S.Laxmamma. 18. I have also carefully considered the documents at Exhibit D1 to D4, which has been marked by defendant No.4. The said documents cannot be considered as a basis to arrive at the conclusion that, the defendant No.4 is entitled for retiral benefits of the deceased Smt.S.Laxmamma, as a legal heir. 19. In this regard, taking into consideration the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt.Sarbati Devi and Another Vs. Smt.Usha Devi, reported in AIR 1984 SC 346 and in the case of Shreya Vidyarthi Vs. Ashok Vidyarthi and others reported in AIR 2016 SC 139, as the plaintiffs have established their right in respect of the deceased employee to claim benefits of the deceased and mere mentioning a particular name as a nominee, does not entitle such nominee to claim the retiral benefits of the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29404 RSA No. 230 of 2015 deceased employee. In the aforementioned rulings, it is also stated that the nominee of Life Insurance Policy does not get absolute right to the amount due, unless the relationship is to be proved before the competent Court in a manner known to law. 20. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the finding recorded by the Trial Court, I am considering that, the Trial court rightly arrived at the conclusion and decreed the suit. However, same has been erroneously interfered with by the First Appellate Court in RA No.19/2013. It is also to be noted from the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court, wherein the First Appellate Court has not properly re-appreciated the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3, who were the brother and sister of deceased Smt.S.Laxmamma. 21. In that view of the matter, as there is no proper appreciation of the evidence by the First Appellate Court as per Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC, the substantial question - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29404 RSA No. 230 of 2015 of law framed above favours the plaintiff. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. Regular Second Appeal is allowed. ii. Judgment and decree dated 17.11.2014, in RA No.19/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Channagiri is set aside. iii. Judgment and decree dated 22.01.2013, in OS No.688/2007 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Channagiri is hereby confirmed and accordingly, suit of the plaintiff is decreed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE KVR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38