Bangalore District Court
Rajeshwari Irayya Hiremath vs Sudha Suresh Pujari on 13 January, 2025
KABC010127552015
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-64) AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 13th day of January, 2025
: PRESENT :
Sri. I. P. Naik
LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
OS No.4958/2025
C/W
O.S.No.8210/2015
PLAINTIFFS :- 1. Master. Sanketh B Hiremath,
S/o.Late. V. Basavaraj,
Aged about 15 years,
2. Kum. Sadhvi B. Hiremath,
D/o.Late. V. Basavaraj,
Aged about 11 years,
3. Smt.Sudha,
D/o.Srisuresh Poojar,
Aged about 37 years,
all are residing at:
No.106, 1st C Cross,
6th A Main, Romeo Layout,
Vijayanagar,
2 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
Bangalore-560 040.
(By Sri. NNR., Advocate)
-V/s-
DEFENDANTS : 1 State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Home Department,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore
2. The Director General & Inspector
General of Police,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore.
3. Smt. Bharathi,
W/o.Sri.Annaveeraiah,
Aged about 40 years,
Anganawadi Teacher,
Residing at Koruwar Village,
Chittapura Taluk,
Kalburgi District.
4. Smt. Rajeshwari E Hiremath,
Aged about 40 years,
Residing at Bannikatte Circle,
Gandhinqagar,
Rajeeva Gandhi Nagar,
Gadag.
(D1 & D2-by Sri.SBM,
D3-Exparte,
D4- SSK-Adv)
--------------
3 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
Date of institution of the suit 08.09.2015
Nature of the suit Declaration, division and
permanent Injunction
Date of commencement of
19.02.2022
recording of evidence
Date on which the judgment 13.01.2025
was pronounced
Years Months Days
Total Duration
09 08 05
**********
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff No.1 to 3 have filed this suit against
the defendant No.1 to 4 for the relief of declaration of
their status to deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath as
children and wife and effect partition in suit schedule
‘A’ and Suit ‘B’ Schedule properties and direct the
defendant No.1 & 2 to disburse off the service benefits
to the plaintiffs as the successor of deceased Basavaraj
V Hiremath and direct the defendant No.4 to handover
4 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
the item of ‘A’ schedule property and restrained the
defendant No.4 or her agents from creating partition or
alienation ‘A’ schedule property and also not to
disburse the amount of ‘B’ schedule property by
granting permanent injunction.
2. The description of suit properties;
The plaintiffs have claiming rights over the following
properties:-
1. LCD TV worth about Rs 1,00,000/- and valuable
household articles which are in the matrimonial house
worth about Rs 2,00,000/-.
2. One wagner Car bearing No KA-01/K-1221.
———-hereinafter above properties are referred as
suit ‘A’ schedule properties.
1. Service benefits like pension Amount, DCRG, EGIAS,
GPF, KGID and other pensioner benefits of the deceased
Basavaraj V with the first and second defendants.
—————-hereinafter above properties are referred
as ‘B’ Schedule properties.
5 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
3.The factual matrix of the plaintiff’s case is as
under;
The plaintiff No.2 is the son and Plaintiff No.2 is
the daughter of the plaintiff No.3 Smt.Sudha and her
husband Basavaraj V Hiremath. The marriage of the
plaintiff No.3 was performed and solemnized with the
Basavaraj V Hiremath on 28.01.1999, he was working
as Second Division Assistant in the office of the
defendant No.2. The plaintiff No.3 is working as
teacher in Government Urdu Higher Primary School,
Richmond Town, Bengaluru.
4. The marriage of the plaintiff No.3 and Basavaraj
V Hiremath was dissolved by submitting mutual
consent divorce petition for dissolution of their
marriage before the learned II Additional District
Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in
6 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
M.C.No.2385/2012. Accordingly, heir marriage was
dissolved as per the order dated 4.10.2012. During
their matrimonial life they have purchased the
properties described in suit ‘A’ schedule property.
Basavaraj V Hiremath died on 02.03.2015 due to long
time ill ness. In his service records the Plaintiff No.3 is
mentioned as nominee and legally wedded wife of the
Basavaraj V Hiremath. The deceased Basavaraj V
Hiremath is having ancestral immovable property i.e.,
land bearing No 134/1 admeasured 7 acre 37 guntas
at Amaravathi Village, Hunugund Taluk. The plaintiff
No.1 and 2 and defendant No.3 have got partitioned in
the said property in O.S.No.34/2015 as per terms of
compromise. The plaintiff No.3 has received funeral
expenses from the defendant No.2 to perform the last
rituals of deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath. The
plaintiffs have moved the application before the
defendant No.2. At that time, they have averred that
7 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
the defendant No.3 has also met the expenses, so they
are eligible for the service benefits of the Basavaraj V
Hiremath. After dissolution of the marriage, the
plaintiff is residing vicinity to Police Quarters, Shanti
Nagar, Bengaluru. The deceased Basavaraj V
Hiremath had cultivated bad habits, i.e., consuming
alcohol and due to that, he was suffering from severe
jaundice, he was continuously hospitalized at Gadag
and thereafter he died. The plaintiffs averred that the
defendant No.4 is not related to deceased Basavaraj V
Hiremath or she is not having any relationship with
the deceased. In spite of that she having possession of
the property mentioned in the suit A schedule
property. The plaintiffs are alone legal successors of
the deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath. The defendant
No.4 is claiming to be wife of the deceased Basavaraj
V Hiremath. Hence, plaintiff have filed this suit for
aforesaid relief.
8 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
5. In pursuant to the Summons, the defendant
No.1, 2 & 4 appeared through their respective counsel.
In spite of service of summons, the defendant No.3
failed to appear before this court. Hence, he is placed
exparte.
6. The defendant No.1 & 2 have filed their
written statement. The defendant No.4 has filed her
written statement separately.
7. The defendant No.1 & 2 have taken
contention that after death of Basavaraj V Hiremath,
the defendant No.4 has submitted representation
thereafter, it was disclosed that Basavaraj V Hiremath
had filed petition before the 2nd additional principle
Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in M.C.No.2385/2015
for dissolution of her marriage with the plaintiff No.3.
9 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
After dissolution of their marriage, deceased got re-
married defendant No.4 at Kudala Sangama on
18.02.2013. The deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath has
not made any representation for change of name in the
place of plaintiff No.3 after re-marriage with the
defendant No.4. The defendant No.1 & 2 have
disbursed Rs.5,000/- as funeral expenses. As per the
KCSR (family pension) Rules 1964, divorcee wife or
husband is not liable for family pension.
8. The plaintiff No.3, defendant No.3 & 4 have
made request to release the monetary benefits,
including appointment on ground of Compensatory
due to Basavaraj V Hiremath dead in service. The
defendant No.4 submitted death certificate showing
that she is the wife of deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath.
Rest of the pleadings of the defendant No.1 & 2
10 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
pleaded that the plaintiff has to be proved the
averments made in the para No.4, 7 to 12 of plaint and
prays for pass appropriate orders as it deems fit.
9. The defendant No.4 has filed separate
written statement wherein she has not disputed
regarding the plaintiff No.1 & 2 are children of
deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath and dissolution of the
marriage between the plaintiff No.3 and deceased
Basavaraj V Hiremath as per the orders in passed by
the learned 2nd Additional principal Family Court,
Bengaluru in M.C.No.2385/2012 on 4.10.2012. The
defendant No.4 not disputed regarding the Basavaraj V
Hiremath died on 02.03.2015. The plaintiff No.3 got
divorce from Basavaraj V Hiremath by mutual
consent. Therefore, she is not entitled for relief claimed
in this suit.
11 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
10. The defendant No.4 pleaded ignorance
regarding existence of immovable property at
Amruthavati Village, Hungund Taluk, Bagalkote
District. Further, she pleaded ignorance regarding
defendant No.3 filed suit in O.S.No.34/2015 and same
was decreed on 08.04.2015. The defendant No.4 is not
party to the said suit. Therefore, the decree in
O.S.No.34/2015 is not binding on the defendant No.4.
11. The defendant No.4 pleaded that the
plaintiff No.3 received funeral expenses from the
defendant No.1 due to her name is mentioned in the
service records (Service Register Book) of deceased.
Therefore, she received the same. But the defendant
No.4 and her relatives have borne entire funeral
expenses of deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath. The
plaintiff No.3 are very well aware that she is not the
12 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
wife of the deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath, she has
obtained the mutual consent divorce from the
deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath. The plaintiff No.3
has taken undue advantage of not deleting her name
from the service records of the deceased.
12. The properties described in the suit ‘A’
schedule property are self acquired properties of the
deceased. Therefore, the plaintiffs have no right over
the suit ‘A’ schedule property. The defendant No.4
specifically denied that she is totally stranger to the
deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath. As pleaded by the
defendants, the defendant No.4 being a legally wedded
wife of Basavaraj V Hiremath she has got right over
the property described in the schedule ‘A’ property and
schedule ‘B’ property of the plaint.
13 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
13. The defendant No.4 has taken the specific
contention that her marriage was solemnized with the
deceased on 18.02.2013 at Kudala Snagama,
Hungund Taluk, Bagalkote District. After marriage, the
defendant No.4 started residing with the deceased
Basavaraj V Hiremath during his life time, at Police
Quarter, Shanti Nagar Bengaluru. After marriage with
the deceased, he was obtained life insurance policy
bg.No.697977367 for a sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/-.
In the said policy deceased specifically mentioned the
name of the defendant No.4 as nominee and wife. After
mutual consent divorce the plaintiff No.1 to 3 are
residing separately. Thereafter plaintiff No.3 never
resided with the deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath
during his life time.
14 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
14. The Basavaraj V Hiremath died at Barale
Mission Hospital, Betagere, Gadag on 02.03.2015.
After the death of the deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath
the plaintiff No.3 and defendant No.3 made hectic
efforts to get the death benefits of the deceased
Basavaraj V Hiremath and also tried to vacate the
defendant No.3 by making false representation before
the defendant No.2. On 16.03.2015 the defendant No.4
also submitted representation before the defendant
No.2 claiming service benefits of deceased out of the
pension, KGID, GPF etc., But the defendant No.2
issued endorsement on 27.05.2015 and directed to
obtain succession certificate from the competent court
of law. Hence, the defendant No.4 filed separate suit in
O.S.No.8210/2015.
15 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
15. The defendant No.4 specifically pleaded that the
plaintiff No.3 colluding with deputy Tahsildar,
Bengaluru North, (Upper) Yelahanka Taluk, Cubbonpet
Bengaluru and got legal heirship certificate, income
and caste certificate by suppressing true materials.
The plaintiff No.3 is a divorced lady. She is not at all a
legal heir of the deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath. The
defendant No.4 not disputed that the plaintiff No.1 & 2
are the legal heirs of the deceased Basavaraj V
Hiremath. The defendant No.4 is the legally wedded
wife of the deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath. Therefore,
she is entitled to receive the monetary benefits along
with the plaintiff No.1 & 2. Therefore, the defendant
No.4 taken contention that the plaintiffs have not
approached this court with clean hands and
suppressed the true material facts before this court.
Hence prays to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff with
costs.
16 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
16. On the basis of aforesaid rival pleadings,
following issues were framed;
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that they
are the legal heirs and successor of the
deceased Basavaraj.V?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they
are the sharers in the suit schedule
property as it is claimed.?
3. Whether the plaintiffs further proves
that they are entitled to received the
service benefits of the deceased
Basavaraj.V as his legal heirs.?
4. Whether, the plaintiffs prove that the
defendants No.4 is a stranger to the
deceased Basavaraj.V.?
17 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
5. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they
are entitled to the custody of the schedule
‘A’ property from the defendant No.4.?
6. Whether, the plaintiffs prove that they
are entitled to the relief of injunction as it
is sought.?
7. Whether the defendant No.4 proves that
she married Sri.Basavaraj.V after his first
marriage was dissolved with the plaintiff
No.3.?
8. What Order or Decree.?
18 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
KABC010223452015
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-64) AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 13th day of January, 2025
: PRESENT :
Sri. I. P. Naik
LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
O.S.No.8210/2015
PLAINTIFFS :- 1. Smt. Rajeshwarai Irayya
Hiremath,
W/o.Late Basavaraj V. Hiremath,
Aged about 40 years,Presently resident of
No.C/08, Shanthinagar,
Barlin Street, Police Quarters,
Bengaluru-560 027.
Permanent address at
C/o. Sri.S.Hiremath (Ex-
serviceman)
“Matru Krupa’
H.No.771, Rajivgandhi Nagar,
Gaddaga-582101.
(By Sri. SSK., Advocate)
19 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
V/s
DEFENDANTS : 1. Smt.Sudha Suresh Pujari,
D/o.Suresh Pujari,
Aged about 37 years,
residents of Narayana
Building, No.205,
3rd Main, 3rd Cross,
Nanjappa Layout,
Bengaluru-560 030.
Working Address:
Government Urdu Higher
Primary School,
Near Jonson Market,
Shanthinagar,
Bengaluru-560 027.
2. Master Sanketh B Hiremath,
S/o.Late. V.Basavaraj,
Aged about 15 years,
3. Kum.Sadhvi, B. Hiremath,
D/o.Late V. Basavaraj,
Aged about 11 yearsSince the defendants No.2 and 3
are minors represented by their
natural guardian-mother/next
friend, the defendant No.1Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are
residents of
20 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
Narayana building No.205,
3rd Main, 3rd Cross,
Nanjappa Layout,
Audugodi,
Bengaluru-560 030.
4. Smt. Bharathi,
W/o.Annaveerayya,
Aged about 42 years,
Resident of Koravara
Chittapur Taluq,
Kalaburgi District.
5. The State of Karnataka,
represented by its Chief Secretary,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore-560 001.
6. The Director General & Inspector
General of Police,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore-560 001.
7. The Deputy Tahsildar,
Bengaluru North(Upper)
Yelahanka Taluq,
Cubbonpet,
Bengaluru-560 034.
**********
Date of institution of the suit 26.09.2015
Nature of the suit Declaration, division and
permanent Injunction
21 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
Date of commencement of
19.02.2022
recording of evidence
Date on which the judgment 13.01.2025
was pronounced
Years Months Days
Total Duration
09 07 17
******
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit against the
defendant No.1 to 7 for relief of declaration of her
status with the deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath along
with the defendant No.2 and 4 as class-I heir, further
to declare that the legal heirship issued by the
defendant No.7 is illegal and plaintiff is entitled to
receive the service benefits of deceased Basavaraj V
Hiremath and issue permanent injunction against the
defendant No.6 from the disbursing the service
benefits and monetary benefits to defendant No.1 to
defendant No.4 or unpaid claiming these orders and
22 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
also issue mandatory injunction against the defendant
No.6 to provide job on compensatory grounds and also
to direct to released the pensionary benefits in favour
of the plaintiffs.
17. The factual matrix of the plaintiff’s case is as
under;
The defendant No.2 & 3 are minors, they are
represented by their Natural Guardian, mother i.e.,
defendant No.1. One Basavaraj V Hiramath was
working as a Second Division Assistant in Police
Department i.e., office of the defendant No.6. The
marriage of the defendant No.1 was solemnized with
the Basavaraj V Hiremath on 28.01.1999 at
Tharalabalu Kendra, R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru. Out of
their wedlock, defendant No.2 & 3 born to them. The
defendant No.1 is working as teacher in Government
Urdu Higher Primary School, Johnson Market,
23 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
Shanthinagar, Bengaluru. The defendant No.4 is the
sister of the Basavaraj V Hiremath.
18. There was difference of opinion and
misunderstanding in matrimonial life of the defendant
No.1 and Basavaraj V Hiremath. Therefore, they have
started residing separately since 10.04.2010. Further,
they have decided to dissolve their marriage by mutual
consent. Accordingly, both have filed mutual divorce
petition before the 2nd additional Principal Family
Court in M.C.No.2385/2012, as per the orders dated
04.10.2012 their marriage was dissolved with mutual
consent. Thereafter, Basavaraj V Hiremath got
married with the plaintiff on 18.0.2013 at Kudula
Sangama, Hungund taluq, Bagalkote District. After
marriage plaintiff and her husband Basavaraj V
Hiramath started residing at police Quarters bearing.
24 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
House No.6/08, Shanthinagara, Berlyn street,
Bengaluru. Due to some some bad habits Basavaraj V
Hiramath was suffering from illness. Due to the said
illness he died on 02.03.2015. The plaintiff, defendant
No.2 & 3 are the Class-I legal heirs of deceased
Basavaraj V Hiramath. The defendant No.3 obtained
legal heirship certificate bearing
No.RD0039275097880 by producing forged and
concocted documents from of office of defendant No.7.
The defendant No.3 is not at all an Class-I legal
deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath. Therefore legal heir
certificate issued by the defendant No.7 in favour of
the defendant No.1 to 3 illegal and not binding or
plaintiff. Based on that documents, the defendant No.3
and defendant No.4 are making hectic receive the
service, death benefits of the Basavaraj V Hiremath by
submitting representation before the defendant No.6
by suppressing the true materials facts.
25 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
19. Further, the defendant No.1 taking undue
advantage of her name in the service records of
deceased. Therefore, the plaintiff filed representation
before the defendant No.6 and sought for release the
death benefits and service benefits of the deceased.
The deceased No.6 issued endorsement and directed to
obtain succession certificate from the competent Court
of Law. Hence, the plaintiff has filed this suit with
aforesaid relief.
20. In pursuant to the Summons, the defendant
No.1 to 3, 5 & 6 appeared through their respective
counsel. The defendant No.4 and 7 failed to appear
before this Court. Therefore, the defendant No.4 and 7
are placed exparte. The defendant No.1 filed her
written statement on behalf of their minor children
defendant No.2 & 3. The defendant No.6 filed written
26 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
statement separately, same is adopted by the
defendant No.5 by filing memo.
21. The defendant No.1 has taken the contention
in her written statement that the defendant No.2 and 3
are her children and they are in her custody. She
specifically denied regarding the marriage of the
plaintiff with the deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath on
18.02.2013. The defendant not disputed that she has
got mutual consented divorce in M.C.No.2385/2012 as
per the orders dated 4.10.2012. The defendant No.1
taken the contention that the Basavaraj V. Hiremath
was suffering from sever illness, in the interest and
welfare of their children the defendant No.1 got re-
married with the Basavaraj V. Hiremath on 25.11.2012
at Shri. Mahalakshmi Temple, Mahalakshmi nagar,
Gubbi, Tumkuru District. After that the defendant
27 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
No.1 to 3 were residing with the deceased Basavaraj V.
Hiremath. Due to ill ness Basavaraj V. Hiremath died
on 02.03.2015. Further, the defendant No.1
specifically denied that the plaintiff is legally wedded
wife of the Basavaraj V. Hiremath. If the plaintiff is
real wife of the Basavaraj V. Hiremath her name will be
cause entered in the service records of Basavaraj V.
Hiremath. The plaintiff created Smart card, ID Card
and LIC policy in order to have wrongful gain by
getting service benefits. The defendant No.1 has alone
taken care of the Basavaraj V. Hiremath at his evening
days.
22. The defendant No.1 has taken the specific
contention that the defendant No.4 is sister of
deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath, the defendant No.4
has filed suit for partition in O.S.No.34/2015 before
the learned Sr.Civil Judge, Hungud, Bagalkote District.
28 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
They have got share as per the order passed in Lok
Adalath on 08.04.2015.
23. After the death of the Basavaraj V. Hiremath,
the defendant No.1 and her relatives performed the
last rituals of the deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath.
Further, the defendant No.1 has taken the funeral
expenses from the defendant No.6. Service records of
deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath discloses that the
defendant No.1 is nominee and his wife. Therefore, it
discloses that after re-marriage of defendant No.1 and
3 they are residing with deceased Basavaraj V.
Hiremath. After th death of they are the Class -I legal
heirs of the Basavaraj V. Hiremath. The plaintiff is
nowhere concerned to the Basavaraj V. Hiremath, she
is total stranger to the family of these defendants and
deceased.
29 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
24. The defendant No.1 has specifically denied
that she has obtained succession certificate by
submitted forged and concocted documents. The
defendant No.1 already filed suit against the present
plaintiff and others in O.S.No.4958/2015, this itself
discloses that she is not related to the family of the
deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath. The defendant No.1
to 3 are only legal heirs of the deceased Basavaraj V.
Hiremath. Therefore, prays for dismiss the suit of the
plaintiff with costs.
25. The defendant No.5 has taken contention that
after death of Basavaraj V Hiremath, the plaintiff has
submitted representation thereafter, it was disclosed
that Basavaraj V Hiremath had filed petition before the
2nd additional principle Judge, Family Court,
Bengaluru in M.C.No.2385/2015 for dissolution of her
marriage with the defendant No.1. After dissolution of
30 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
their marriage plaintiff again married with the
deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath at Kudala Sangama on
18.02.2013. The deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath has
not made any representation for change of name in the
place of defendant No.1 after marriage with the
plaintiff. The defendant No.5 & 6 have disbursed
Rs.5,000/- as funeral expenses. As per the KCSR
(family pension) Rules 1964, divorcee wife or husband
is not entitle to family pension of retied government
servants.
26. The defendant No.1 defendant No.3 and
defendant No.4 have made request to release the
monetary benefits, including appointment on of
ground Compensatory due to death of Basavaraj V
Hiremath, who was in service. The plaintiff submitted
death certificate showing that she is the wife of
31 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath. Rest of the pleadings
of the plaintiff is denied and she has to be proved the
averments made in the plaint. Further, prior to filing
this suit, the plaintiff has not issued notice to
defendant No.5 and 6 as contemplated U/Sec 80 of
CPC. Hence, prays for pass appropriate orders as it
deems fit.
27. Based on the rival pleadings the Issues are
framed in O.S.No.8210/2015 on 26.08.2016 and on
22.11.2018. The issues framed on 22.11.2018 are
considered for discussion and conclusion of this suit.
Same read thus;
1. Whether, the plaintiff proves that she is
the legally wedded wife of the deceased
Basavaraj.V Hiremath?
2. Whether the plaintiffs proves that she is
Class-1 heir of the deceased Basavaraj V.
32 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
Hiremath along with the defendant No.2 &
3?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the
legal heirship certificate dated 05.05.2015,
issued by the defendant No.7 in favour of
the defendant No.1 to 3 is illegal?
4. Whether, the plaintiffs proves that she
is entitled to receive all the service benefits
of the deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath?
5. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is
entitled to the right of Permanent and
Mandatory injunction as it is sought?
6. Whether, the defendant No.5 & 6 prove
that the suit of the plaintiff is not
maintainable for non compliance of sec.80
of C.P.C ?
7. What Order or Decree?
33 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
Additional Issues
1. Whether defendant No.1 proves that
she got re-marriage with deceased
Basavaraj.V.Hiremath on 25.11.2012 at
Sri.Mahalakshmi Temple, Mahalakshmi
Nagarak at Gubbi as pleaded in para No.5
of written statement of defendant No.1?
28. Hereinafter, the rank of parties taken into
consideration and rank for better appreciation of
matter in controversy. The defendant No.1 to 3 in
O.S.No.8210/2015 referred as plaintiff No.1 to 3. The
plaintiff in O.S.No.8210/2015 referred as defendant
No.4. The defendant No.4 in O.S.No.8210/2015
referred as defendant No.3, The defendant No.5 and 6
in O.S.No.8210/2015 are referred as defendant No.1
and 2. The rank of defendant No.7 in
O.S.No.8210/2015 remains as it is.
34 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
29. In order to discharge the burden lies on the
plaintiffs, they have examined three witnesses
including plaintiff No.3 examined as PW.1 to 3 and 24
documents are got marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.24. On
other hand, six witnesses examined as DW.1 to DW.6
on behalf of defendant No.4. In support of her oral
evidence he has produced 38 documents as Ex.D.1 to
Ex.D.38. Other defendants have not adduced oral and
no documents produced on their behalf.
30. Heard the arguments on both side.
31. On considering pleadings, oral, documentary
evidence and hearing of parties my answer to issues
settled in both suit is as under;
ISSUES IN O.S.No.4958/2015
ISSUE No.1 : In the partly affirmative.
ISSUE No.2 : In the partly affirmative.
35 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
ISSUE No.3 : In the partly affirmative.
ISSUE No.4 : In the negative.
ISSUE No.5 : In the negative.
ISSUE No.6 : In the partly affirmative.
ISSUE No.7.: In the affirmative.
ISSUE No.8. : As per final order.
ISSUES IN O.S.No. 8210/2015
ISSUE No.1 : In the affirmative.
ISSUE No.2 : In the affirmative.
ISSUE No.3 : In the affirmative.
ISSUE No.4 : In the partly affirmative.
ISSUE No.5 : In the partly affirmative.
ISSUE No.6 : In the negative.
ADDLN. ISSUE No.1: In the negative.
ISSUE No.7: As per final order.
————-for following
REASONS
32. On considering contention of rival parties
following facts between them are admitted and
undisputed;
36 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
Admitted facts of both parties;
32.1. The marriage of plaintiff No.3 performed
and solemnized with deceased Basavaraj V, Hiremath
on 28.01.1999 at Taralabalu Kendra, R.T.Nagar,
Bengaluru.
32.2. The plaintiff No.1 and 2 born out of wed
lock and matrimonial of life of the plaintiff No.3 and
deceased Basavaraj V.Hiremath.
32.3. The plaintiff No.3 and deceased Basavaraj
V.Hiremath got mutual consent decree/Ex.D.8 for
dissolution of their marriage as per order/Ex.D.7
passed by learned II Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court, Bengaluru in M.C.No.2385/2012 on
presentation of memorandum of settlement/Ex.D.9.
32.4 Basavaraj V.Hiremath dead on 02.03.2015
at Basel Mission (CSI) Hospital, Gadag.
37 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
33. Undisputed facts of both parties;
33.1. One Smt Deepa who was sister of deceased
Basavaraj V.Hiremath,came Bengaluru and she dead
in police quarters situated at Shanti Nagar Bengaluru,
wherein her brother Basavaraj V, Hiremath was
resides.
33.2 Said Smt Deepa was unmarried when
deceased Basavaraj V.Hiremath was joined service. In
his service records book he was nominated his wife
Smt Sudha (it mentioned before divorce) and
unmarried sister Deepa.
33.3 The defendant No.3 filed suit for partition in
immovable properties described in para No.4 of plaint
presented on 08.04.2015 in O.S.No. 34/2015 before
learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hungund,
Bagalakote District.
33.4. The defendant No.3 entered into
compromise with plaintiff No.1 and 2 in
O.S.No.34/2015 and got settled before Lok Adalath
held on 08.04.2015.
38 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
Arguments of the plaintiffs.
34. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs
submitted that there is no dispute that the plaintiff
No.1 & 2 are children of the plaintiff No.3 and the
deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath. This fact is not
admitted by the defendants including the defendant
No.4. The defendant No.4 is totally stranger to the
plaintiffs’ family. The plaintiff No.3 and the deceased
Basavaraj V. Hiremath got married on 29.01.1999 at
Taralabalu Kendra, R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru. They have
led happy matrimonial life for a period of one decade.
The deceased was drunkard, for this reason, difference
of opinion arose between them. Hence, they have
decided to dissolve their marriage by filing mutual
consent divorce. Accordingly, they have got mutual
consent decree for divorce in M.C.No.2382/2012 dated
4.10.2012, to dissolved their marriage. The learned
39 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
counsel for the plaintiffs heavily and strongly relied
that in re-marriage parents of the interest of minor
children the plaintiff No.1 & 2 i.e., plaintiff No.3 and
the deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath got remarried on
25.11.2012 at Sri.Mahalakshmi Temple, Mahalakshmi,
Tumkur District. The name of the plaintiff No.3
continued as wife in his service records of the deceased
Accordingly, she has received the funeral expenses
from the defendant No.2. After that, the defendant
No.3 being the sister of the deceased, she filed suit for
partition and separate possession in land bearing
No.134/1 admeasuring 7 acres 37 guntas land
situated at Amaravathi, Hungud Taluk, Belagavi
district in O.S.No.34/2015 before the Senior Civil
Judge and JMFC, Hungiind, Bagalakote District. They
have got compromise decree in the said suit. This fact
is not seriously disputed by the defendant No.4 as
legal heirs of the deceased, the plaintiff have got
40 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
possession of the item No.2 of the property described
in the schedule ‘A’ property.
35. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs urged
that the defendant NO.4 is totally stranger to the
plaintiffs and deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath’s
family. She has created Ex.D.3 and Ex.D.6
documents by herself and exposed as legally wedded
wife of the deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath. If she is
really a legally wedded wife of the deceased her name
will be automatically mentioned in the service records.
This itself clearly shows that the plaintiff No.3 is not
the legal heir of the deceased. If after divorce plaintiff
No.3 and deceased residing in the separate house near
Police Quarters of the deceased. Further, the
defendant No.4 created LIC Policy bond and claiming
her rights over the property described in schedule B
41 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
property. The defendant No.3 is nowhere concerned to
the plaintiff’s family. She has no right over the
claim of the plaintiff.
36. The learned counsel for the plaintiff urged
that in order to establish the marriage of the defendant
No.3 and deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath she has
examined her relatives. But they are not aware about
when and what time marriage was performed. Even
though they have not produced the wedding invitation
card, simply they have created photo and got marked
them at Ex.D.32 to Ex.D.36. Therefore, the defendants
failed to prove that she is legally wedded wife of the
deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath. Therefore, the
learned counsel for the plaintiffs prays for decree the
suit with costs of plaintiffs (O.S.No.4858/2015) and
42 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
dismissed the suit of defendant No.4 with cost
(O.S.No.8210/2015).
Argument of defendant No.4
37. As against this, the learned counsel for the
defendant No.4 urged that at undisputed time, the
plaintiff No.3 herself stated that she is divorced wife of
the deceased. This fact reveals from her plaint in
presented in O.S.No.4958/2015. Same is also reflected
in the plaint presented O.S.No.43/2015 and
compromise decree of O.S.No.34/2015. The address
furnished by the plaintiff No.3 itself discloses that after
divorce, herself along with her children never resided
with the deceased. In order to deprive the legal rights
of the defendant No.4 she has started to misguiding
the authorities including the Police Department and
revenue Department. She has suppressed the true
material facts and created death certificate and got
43 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
legal heirship certificate from the defendant No.4 by
representing false facts before the Revenue authority.
Even though before this court she has not produced
complete documents in order to misguided the court.
This fact is admitted by the plaintiff No.3 in her cross-
examination. At undisputed point of time, the
deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath obtained LIC policy
in his name and also he has cited the name of the
defendant No.4 as his spouse and wife and she is
mentioned as nominee. During the life time of the
deceased his sister by name Smt. Deepa died at the
Police quarters, at that time, he has lodged complaint
as per Ex.D.21 before the Ashok Nagar Police Station,
Bengaluru, wherein he is specifically mentioned that in
police quarter along with him his wife
Rajeshwari/defendant No.4 and his sister Deepa is
residing in the said house.
44 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
38. Further, at undisputed point of time, 3
documents were obtained by the deceased from the
competent authority i.e., I.D. Card got marked at
Ex.d.3 and D.6, LIC policy. The marriage certificate
issued by the Koodalasangama Development Party,
Koodalasangakam as per Ex.D.5. After the death of
the Basavaraj V. Hiremath, the defendant No.4 the
deceased applied for extension of time to reside in the
police quarter before the defendant No.2. The
defendant No.2 allowed the said application and
permitted to reside her fur further reasonable time.
This fact reveals from Ex.D.26.
39. Another important document i.e., letter of
undertaking/Ex.D.31 submitted by the Basavaraj V.
Hiremath before the Corporation Bank on 04.08.2014,
wherein he specifically mentioned that the
45 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
Rajeshwari/defendant No.4 is his wife, Sanketh and
Sadhwi/plaintiff No.1 and 2 are his son and
daughter/children. Considering all these aspects it
clearly discloses that the marriage of the defendant
No.4 solemnized with the deceased on 18.02.2013 at
Koodalasangama. This version is corroborated from the
oral evidence of DW.4 to DW.6.
40. The learned counsel for the defendant No.4
has drawn the attention of this court on Ex.D.22 to
Ex.D.25. The defendant No.3/Bharati was filed suit for
partition in O.S.No.34/2015 on the file of the Sr.Civil
Judge and JMFC, Hungund, Bagalakote District, on
08.2.2015 without waiting for service of suit summons,
the plaintiff No.3 was appeared in said suit on behalf
of the plaintiff No.2 & 3 voluntarily on 08.04.2015,
their ranking in the said suit is defendant No.1 to 3.
46 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
On the same day they have entered into compromise
and presented compromise petition Ex.P.23 and got
conclusive compromise decree as per Ex.P.25. This
itself discloses the intention of Plaintiff No.3 to deprive
the legal rights of the defendant No.4.
41. Another interesting point urged by the
learned counsel for the defendant No.4 is that the
death certificate Ex.D.10 and another unmarked death
certificate of Basavaraj V. Hiremath in Ex.D.10. The
name of the defendant No.4 and plaintiff No.3 is
mentioned as wife of the deceased in death certificate.
But the name of the plaintiff No.3 is deleted from the
death certificate. But she has misused the earlier
death certificate and obtained the legal survivor
certificate Ex.D.16. Therefore, these documents i.e.,
illegal and not binding on her. After having knowledge
47 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
of the said fact defendant No.4 submitted requisition to
the get back the legal heir certificate issued in favour
of the defendants by submitting the requisition
Ex.D.17, dated 20.06.2015.
42. The learned counsel for the defendant No.4
submitted that the defendant No.4 not at all denied the
legal status of the plaintiff No.1 & 2 that they are the
children of deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath. Therefore,
the defendant No.4, plaintiff No.1 & 2 are the Class-I
leal heirs of the Basavaraj V. Hiremath. Therefore,
they are entitled for the death benefits of the
Basavaraj V. Hiremath. The plaintiff has not
approached this court with clean hands. Therefore,
prays for decree the suit of defendant No.4 with cost
(O.S.No8210/2015) and dismiss the suit of the
plaintiffs with cost (O.S.No.4958/2015). The learned
48 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
counsel for defendant No.4 has relied on following
Judgment in support of his submission.
AIR 1994 SC 853
S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu VS Jaganath
W.P.No 103766/2018 Dtd 31.03.2022
ISSUE NO 1, 4 AND 7 in O.S.No 4958/2015 AND
ISSUE No. 1, 2 AND ADL NO.1 in O.S.No.
8210/2015.
43. The plaintiffs have taken contention that,
defendant No.4 is stranger of family of deceased
Basavaraj V.Hiremath. As against this, the defendant
No.4 taken contention that, after getting mutual
consent decree for dissolution of marriage with
Basavaraj V.Hiremath, the plaintiff No.3 never re-
married with him. After decree for divorce of marriage
performed between them, Said Basavaraj V.Hiremath
49 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
married with defendant No.4. On considering these
rival contention, these issues inter link with each other
and in order to avoid repeation of facts and reasons,
these issues taken together for common discussion.
44. The plaintiffs have examined 3 witnesses
including Plaintiff No.3. The plaintiff No.3 has stepped
into the witness box and filed affidavit in lieu of
examination in chief wherein she has reiterated the
plaint averments, wherein already averments made in
the plaint is narrated as above. In support of her oral
evidence she has produced in total 28 documents. Out
of that, already photo, CD and letter corresponding
with the defendant No.2, RTC are got marked Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.8. Later on she has produced the order sheet,
marriage invitation card receipt, and other documents
which are got marked as Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.23. In support
50 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
of evidence of PW.1 the plaintiff have examined
Vasudev Acharya as PW.1 and one Smt. Savitha
Poojari who is none other than sister of Plaintiff No.3
examined as PW.3.
45. PW.2 is residing at vicinity of residential
house of plaintiff No.3, He is working in Education
Department. His evidence is related to the remarriage
of the plaintiff No.3 with the deceased Basavaraj V.
Hiremath. In the course of cross-examination the
learned counsel for the defendant put suggestions that
the plaintiff No.3 has not re-married with the deceased
and never resided with him after the divorced. This
suggestions is denied.
46. In the course of cross-examination PW.3
deposed that he is not aware about the mutual
51 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
consent divorce decree filed for dissolution of the
marriage of plaintiff No.3 and the deceased. Further,
he his not aware that the defendant No.4 got married
with the deceased after divorcing the plaintiff No.3 on
18.02.2013. Further, she admitted that one Deepa
sister of the deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath died in
the police quarters. Further, she has pleaded
ignorance about the defendant Rajeshwari is residing
with the deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath and
deceased sister Deepa.
47. In the course of cross-examination PW.1
stated that she is filed this suit on behalf of her minor
children Plaintiff No.1 &2. She was unaware about
defendant No.4 at the time of death of her husband.
Prior to that, she was not aware about the defendant
No.4 Further she stated regarding Deepa died in the
52 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
year 2004 (by mistake year is mentioned as 2004
instead of 2014). Further she admitted that her
husband is having immovable property at Amaravathi
Village, Hungund Taluk. The learned counsel for the
defendant No.4 denied that the defendant No.4 is the
not own sister of the deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath.
This suggestions is denied. Further she admitted
regarding mutual decree of divorce with the deceased
Basavaraj V. Hiremath. The learned counsel for the
defendant No.4 confronted one document, she has
admitted her signature. The said document is marked
at Ex.D.1. The said document is issued by one
Advocate Shri.M.R.Krishna to deceased Basavaraj V.
Hiremath. He issued circular and directed to appear
before the family court for obtaining mutual consent
decree of divorce from Family Court, Bengaluru.
53 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
48. The learned counsel for the defendant No.4
urged regarding no pleading of re-marriage with the
deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath. In
O.S.No.4958/2015 she pleaded ignorance to the said
suggestions. Further, she voluntarily stated that she
has informed to her counsel.
49. The learned counsel for the defendant No.4
suggested that after marriage of the defendant No.4
with the deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath, she is living
with him in the police quarters of Shanthi Nagar,
Bengaluru, This suggestions is denied. The learned
counsel for the defendant No.4 suggested that after
obtaining compromise decree in O.S.No.34/2015 in
order to deprive and defraud the rights of the
defendant No.4. This suggestions is denied. Further,
she is admitted that one Deepa sister of the deceased
54 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
Basavaraj V. Hiremath died on 03.02.2025. Further,
she stated that Deepa died in the police quarter guided
by the deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath.. The learned
counsel for the defendant No.4 suggested that at that
time, the defendant No.4 was residing with the
deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath. In the police
quarters. This suggestion is denied.
50. In order to dis-prove the contention taken by
the plaintiff No.3 and to substantiate the marriage of
the defendant No.4 with the deceased Basavaraj V.
Hiremath, the defendant No.4 herself examined as
DW.1. She has stepped into the witness box wherein
she has reiterated the averments made in the written
statement. In support of her oral evidence, she has
produced 31 documents. In order to prove her
marriage with the Basavaraj V. Hiremath she has
examined one Jagadish, as DW.2, Hiremath N.D as
55 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
DW.6, one Venkatesh Chitraguntala examined as
DW.5. These witnesses including the defendant NO.4
(DW.1) categorically deposed that on 18.02.2013,
defendant No.4 married with the deceased Basavaraj
V. Hiremath after divorce with the plaintiff No.3 at
koodalasangama Hungund Taluk, Belagavi. At the time
of the said marriage, they were present.
51. In his cross-examination DW.5 deposed that
he is having business at Gadag and defendant No.1 is
not belonged to his community. He has signed as
witness to the said marriage. Further, he pleaded
ignorance regarding how many days prior he has to
apply for marriage at Koodalasangama. At the time of
marriage, father of the DW.1, her sister and two
brothers were also present therein.
56 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
52. Further he pleaded ignorance regarding who
had performed the marriage rituals of defendant No.4
and Basavaraj V. Hiremath. Said Basavaraj V.
Hiremath was very well known to him since 10 years.
He pleaded ignorance regarding DW.1 was residing at
Mumbai. But he is not aware about he residing at
Mumbai as he only once visited him at Bengaluru.
Marriage photos are marked at Ex.D.32 to Ex.D.36.
He pleaded ignorance regarding Basavaraj V. Hiremath
never resided in the address mentioned in Ex.D.5.
53. In the course of cross-examination DW.6
stated that one Venkatesh clicked the photos Ex.D.32
to Ex.D.36. He is not aware about who were invited to
the marriage of the defendant No.4 with the Basavaraj
V. Hiremath. The learned counsel for the defendant
suggested that Ex.D.32 to Ex.D.36 are not clicked.
57 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
Further he does not remember about his involvement
in the marriage talks and it was taken placed during
January 2013. The marriage was performed in the
presence of elders and well wishers.
54. The defendant No.1 has examined two other
witness one is Shabbir Hussain, who is examined as
DW3 and DW4 Mahadevaiah. They have deposed that
they are working in the Police Department and residing
in the Police Quarter Shanthi nagar Bengaluru. This
aspects shows that during 2012 deceased Basavaraj V.
Hiremath and the defendant No.1 residing in the police
quarter as per Ex.D.4 at Police quarters, Shanthi
nagar, Bengaluru. Further, they were aware about
DW.4 and deceased residing together in the police
quarters.
58 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
55. In the course of cross-examination, DW.3
deposed that for last 35 years, he is residing in the
police quarters (as on date of examination of PW.3 he
was 45 years old). There is no dispute between the
defendant No.4 and deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath
til his last breath. Therefore, the question put to the
DW.1 that the deceased and the defendant No.4 had
not married and they were living together without
marriage, this suggestion is denied.
56. DW.5 deposed that, the plaintiff No.1 and 2
were going to the school situated near the police
quarters and it is situated near the police quarter of
Shanthi Nagar, Bengaluru. He has pleaded ignorance
to his point. Further during the course of cross-
examination he stated that he has seen the canteen
card which is marked as Ex.P.6. During the cross-
59 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
examination of DW.1 she has not stated about the
written statement filed by the plaintiff No.3 in
O.S.No.8210/2015 she has averred that the Plaintiff
No.3 received Rs.5,000/- as funeral expenses. Further
she stated that the properties described in the ‘A’
schedule property are purchased by the deceased
Basavaraj V. Hiremath. Further the learned counsel
for the plaintiff submitted that LIC police/Ex.D.28 is
forged and created one. This suggestion is denied.
Further the learned counsel for the plaintiff suggested
that she has created the forged and created documents
for the purpose of this case. This suggestion is also
denied. There is no letter corresponding with plaintiff
No.3 from office of the defendant No.2. She has
specifically denied that the you have filed
O.S.No.8210/2015 against the O.S.No.4958/2015 in
order to harass her. The defendant produced the
canteen card as per Ex.D.6 to show that she is the wife
60 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
of the Basavaraj V. Hiremath and also LIC policy. But
these are all created one. This suggestion is specifically
denied.
57. Arguments canvassed by the both rival
paries, I have examined the oral and documentary
evidence placed by the both the parties. In the absence
of the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff
and defendant, in this case, the admitted fact are
already disputed. Therefore, these fact need not
required for discussion. The only important aspect i.e.,
whether the Basavaraj V. Hiremath married with the
defendant No.4 after obtaining mutual consent divorce
decree for dissolution of marriage from the plaintiff
No.3 or whether the plaintiff No.3 got remarried with
the Basavaraj V. Hiremath, immediately after obtaining
divorce. These two factors are very important point
61 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
involved in this case. Therefore, I have meticulously
perused the documentary evidence adduced by the
defendant No.4. There is no dispute that Basavaraj V.
Hiremath died on 03.02.2015. Both the parties
produced the death certificate. The plaintiff have got
marked at Ex.P.24 and defendant No.4 got marked at
Ex.D.10. After the death of Basavaraj V. Hiremath. The
death is registered in the Birth and Death register for
death certificate, wherein he has specifically
mentioned that the Plaintiff No.3 and Defendant No.4
are mentioned as wives of Basavaraj V. Hiremath. The
name of the plaintiff No.3 is deleted on 18.02.2015.
Another important documents produced by the
defendant it clearly discloses that the name of the
plaintiff No.3 is deleted from the death certificate of the
Basavaraj V. Hiremath. At the time of obtaining the
death certificate of Basavaraj V. Hiremath.
62 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
58. The plaintiff has presented application
Ex.D.17. She has obtained the survival certificate as
per Ex.P.16. Prior to fling of the above suit, the
defendant No.3 filed suit for partition in
O.S.No.34/2015 regarding property situated at
Amaravathi Village, Hungund Taluk, as Ex.D.22. The
plaintiff No. and the defendant No.3 have taken
contention that the defendant No.4 clearly discloses
that Ex.D.3 presented by the plaintiff as per Ex.P.23
on 08.04.2015. The order sheet of the said suit
discloses that the said suit bearing No.34/2015 is filed
on 08.04.2015. Therefore, it clearly discloses that the
defendant No.4 and plaintiff No.1 to 3 were present
before that Court. On the same day they have filed
compromise petition. The order was passed and put
her signature on the compromise petition.
63 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
59. One thing is very clear from this that it
clearly discloses that the plaintiff No.3 is the divorced
wife of Basavaraj V. Hiremath. This fact is noticed and
reflected from the order sheet of 5.04.2015. I have
carefully perused the order sheet in O.S.No.34/2015
which clearly discloses that the Plaintiff No.3 is the
divorced wife of the deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath..
Accordingly, she has not obtained any share in the
landed property bearing Sy.No.134/1 of Amaravathi
Village, Hungund Taluk. The husband of the plaintiff
No.3 died on 03.02.2015. The plaintiff No.1 and 2 and
defendant No.3 availed share in the suit on
08.04.2015, within 40 days from the date of death of
Basavaraj V.Hiremath, the plaintiff No.3 and defendant
No.3 has obtained the compromise decree. The reasons
best known to them only. Therefore, it is held that
compromise decreed/Ex.D.25 is collusive decree and
64 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
obtained without knowledge of defendant No.4.
Accordingly it is specifically held that said decree is not
binding of defendant No.4. After the death of
Basavaraj V. Hiremath, the above defendant No.4
issued notice to the defendant No.1 and directed to
vacate the quarters C-9 Berlyn Quarters, within
01.07.2015. The defendant No.4 applied for extension
of time and to resided in the police quarters even after
the death of Basavaraj V. Hiremath. Thereafter, the
plaintiff No.3 defendant No.3 and 4 applied for release
of the total pension amount in their favour. The
learned counsel for the defendant No.4 has rightly
drawn the attention of the court on Ex.P.12 and
Ex.D.19. Both the documents are one and the same.
Ex.D.12 is the endorsement issued from the office of
the defendant NO.2 dated 27.05.2015.
65 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
60. The plaintiff No.3 has filed
O.S.No.4958/2015 on 08.06.2015. The learned
counsel for the defendants has rightly elicited from the
mouth of PW1 and PW3 that prior to death of the
Basavaraj V. Hiremath, she is filed suit in
O.S.No.4958/2024. This fact is denied specifically.
The defendant No.3 presented plaint in
O.S.No.34/2015 before learned Senior Civil Judge and
JMFC, Hungund, Taluk, Begalakote District, wherein it
is clearly deposed and clearly discloses that the
plaintiff No.3 has got mutual consent divorce decree
for dissolution of the marriage between her and
Basavaraj V. Hiremath, and soon after obtaining the
said divorce, she has re-married with the said
Basavaraj V. Hiremath at Shri Mahalakshmi Temple,
Mahalakshminougar, Tumkur District. But she has
produced documents at Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.10, they are
the invitation cards issued from the Mahalakshmi
66 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
temple. The said trust has invited the plaintiff No.3
and the deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath to the temple
for the 11th anniversary of the Mahalakshmi temple
celebrated on 11.05.2014. These documents discloses
that Basavaraj V. Hiremath and Smt.Sudha have paid
an amount to the trust as per Ex.P.11 to Ex.P.14.
61. In cross examination of PW.1, the learned
counsel for defendant No.4 rightly elicited that about
no pleading respect of her re-marriage with deceased
Basavaraj V Hiremath in plaint presented in
O.S.No4958/2015. The PW.1 stated that, she has not
averred about said pleading, further she voluntarily
deposed that informed about re-marriage to her
counsel. The plaintiffs have filed suit bearing No
4958/2015 prior to filing suit bearing O.S.No
8210/2015. In plaint the plaintiff No.3 not at pleaded
about her re-marriage. The plaint presented by plaintiff
67 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
is contend verification clause and verification affidavit.
Therefore, in cross examination PW.1 is not deposing
truth before Court. Prior filing suit by defendant No.4,
the plaintiff No.3 is party to suit bearing No 34/2015
and O.S.No 4958/2015, she has did not disclose and
pleaded regarding her re-marriage.
62. The plaintiff No.3 has pleaded about re-
marriage with deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath after
filing suit bearing O.S.No 8210/2015 in first time at
her written statement. After the defendant No.4
claiming she is wife of deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath.
Therefore, her evidence in respect of re-marriage is not
believable one. The plaintiff No.3 has not examined any
witness who are witnesses to her re-marriage and not
examined author of document/Ex.P.21. Therefore, the
plaintiff No.3 failed to prove her re-marriage with
deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath.
68 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
63. The plaintiff No.3 has claiming her re-
marriage only after suit filed by the defendant No.4 i.e.,
O.S.No 8210/2015. Prior that, the plaintiff No.3 has
got times opportunity and occasion to take plea of re-
marriage with deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath firlty, in
O.S.No 34/2015 filed before learned Senior Civil Judge
and JMFC, Hungund and Secondly in O.S.No.
4958/2015. Further, she has got claim that she
bearing wife/class-I heir of deceased Basavaraj
V.Hiremath. Further, if she really re-married with
him, she definitely claim her share in land bearing Sy.
No.134/1 of Amaravathi village. But the plaintiff No.3
did claimed these rights and pleas in her earlier
pleadings. Therefore, claim made in written statement
by plaintiff No.3 filed in O.S.No 8210/2015 is hit by
principles of constructive Res-Judicata and also hit by
principles of Rule of estoppeal. Therefore, it is held
69 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
that, the plaintiff No.3 (defendant No.3 in O.S.No
8210/2015) has utterly fails to her re-marriage with
deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath on 25.11.2013 at
Mahalaksami Temple, Gubbi, Tumkur District.
64.1 Further, the defendant No.4 has strongly
relied on three documents, which came into exist at
undisputed time, firstly LIC policy/Ex.D..28. During
life of deceased Basavaraj V.Hiremath was obtained
the LIC policy on 26.12.2013, wherein, deceased
specifically mentioned that defendant No.4 is his wife
and nominee.
64.2 Secondly, another important Bank
document i.e., Letter of Underking/Ex.D.31. Wherein,
also deceased has mentioned name of his family
member first his wife Rajeshwari/defendant No.4, his
son Sanketh/plaintiff No.1 and daughter
70 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
Sadhwi/plaintiff No.2. Said Letter of Undertaking
presented on 04.08.2014 before Corporation Bank,
N.T.Road branch Bengaluru (Now Corporation Bank
amalgamated with Union Bank of India in the year
2021). Therefore, Ex.D.31 document is issued by
Union Bank of India on 04.03.2022.
64.3. Thirdly, the registration case under UDR
No 24/2014 of Ashok Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru
based on first information statement lodged by
Basavaraj V.Hiremath on 15.08.2014. In the course of
cross-examination of PW.1 and her brother PW.3, both
deposed that, both are averred about Smt Deepa was
sister of Basavaraj V Hiremath. She dead in police
quarters and in this regard, Basavaraj V Hiremath was
lodged first information statement/Ex.D.21. Furher,
they have pleaded their ignorance recitals of Ex.D.21,
71 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
because two sentence are against to the interest of
plaintiff No.3/PW.1.
65. On considering undisputed fact of death of
Smt Deepa and Ex.D. 28 and Ex.D.31. I have carefully
perused the recitals of letter of undertaking, LIC police
and first information statement (Ex.D.28, Ex.D.31 and
Ex.D.21). In these documents, deceased Basavaraj
V.Hiremath specifically mentioned Rajeshwari is his
wife. In Ex.D.21 deceased narrated facts of death of
Smt Deepa and why she was visited to Bengaluru on
08.08.2014. I have perused the recitals of Ex.D.21.
Wherein, deceased was stated that Smt Deepa was wife
of Eranna. On 08.08.2014 she was came to Bengaluru
from Gulburge District on occasion of Varanalaxmi
festival and Rakhi festival. She ought to be returned on
her matrimonial home on 18.08.2014, unfortunately
72 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
on 15.08.2014 at 05;30am she was suffering for chest
pain. At that time his wife Smt Rajeshwari was treated
her by applying cream thereon. Thereafter, Smt Deepa
was shifted to Malya Hospital at 07;00am, a Doctor
verified and confirmed that Deepa was dead due to
heart attack.
66. On considering recitals of Ex.D.21, Ex.D.28
and Ex.D.31, it clearly disclosed that defendant No.4 is
wife deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath. Further, after
death of Basavaraj V Hiremath, the office of defendant
No.2 have official letter corresponding with defendant
No.4 i.e., police notice/Ex.D.11 Dtd 19.06.2015,
endorsement/Ex.D.19 Dtd 27.05.2015 regarding
vacant of quarters quantified by deceased along with
defendant No.4 and directed to plaintiff No.3 and
defendant No.3 and 4, to produced succussion
73 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
certificate from competent court. In this document,
address of defendant No.4 mentioned as under;
Smt Rajeshwari E Hiremath
W/o late Basavaraj V Hiremath
House No C/08 Shanthi Nagar police quarters
Near Nanjappa Circle, Bengaluru.
This address of defendant No.4 is corroborated
from oral evidence of DW.3 and DW.4 who are
residential of police quarters situated at Shanthi
Nagar Bengaluru.
67. The plaintiff No.3 is tried to misguide this
Court by producing partial part of Ex.D.19. So it is
held that, the plaintiff No.3 has not approached to
Court with clean hands. On considering ocular
evidence of DW.1, DW.2, DW.5 and DW.6 as whole and
photos Ex.D.32 to 36 which are supported with
certificate. It is held that, the defendant No.4 is proved
74 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
that she is wife of deceased Basavaraj V.Hiremath, she
is not stranger to him and she resided with him at
H.No. C/08 Shanthi Nagar police quarters, near
Nanjappa Circle, Bengaluru and her marriage was
performed and solemnized with Basavaraj V Hiremath
on 18.02.2013 at Kudalasangama Hungund tq
Bagalakote District. Further, it is held that, the
plaintiff No.3 fails to prove that she re-marred with
Basabaraj V.Hiremath after getting divorce from him
as taken contentions in para No.5 of her written
statement filed in O.S.No 8210/2015. Therefore, the
plaintiff No.3 being divorced lady, she is not having
any interest in properties left by deceased Basavaraj V
Hiremath as agreed in para 5 of memorandum of
settlement/Ex.D.9 produced before learned II
additional principal Judge, Family Court in M.C.No
2385/2012. The defendant No.4 is not disputing
relationship of plaintiff No.1 and 2 with deceased as
75 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
his children. Accordingly, it is held that, the defendant
No.4, plaintiff No.2 and 3 are class-I legal heir of
deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath.
68. During cross-examination of PW.1, the learned
counsel for defendant No.4 denied the relationship of
defendant No.3 with deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath.
In her pleading the defendant No.4 cleared pleaded
that, the defendant No.3 is sister of deceased. Any
admission made is pleading is putting great judicial
admission in proceedings of the case. The plaint
presented by defendant No.4 in O.S.No8210/2015, she
pleaded that, SmtBharati/defendant No.3 and Smt
Deepa are sisters of Basavaraj V.Hiremath. The
defendant No.3 is sister of deceased. She is not class-I
heir of deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath. At the bast
she is class-II heir of deceased as per schedule of
76 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
Hindu Succession Act,1956. Accordingly issue No.1 in
O.S.No. 4958/2015 answered in the partly affirmative,
issue No.7 in O.S.No 4958/2015 and issue No.1 and 2
in O.S.No 8210/2015 are answered in the affirmative
and issue No.4 in O.S.No 4958/2015 and additional
issue No.1 in O.S.No.8210/2015 answered in the
negative.
ISSUE No.6 in O.S.No 8210/2015.
69. The defendant No. 1 and 2 (in O.S.No
8210/2014 the rank of these defendants is defendant
No.5 and 6) have pleaded that, the defendant No.1
(plaintiff in O.S.No 8210/2015 filed the suit without
issuing statutory notice as contemplated under Sec 80
of CPC. Admitted, the defendant No.4 as well as the
plaintiff No.3 have not got issued statutory notice to
Government officials/servants. As per sec 80 of CPC it
is mandatory one. At this stage, this Court relied on
77 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
endorsement/Ex.D.19 issued by the defendant No.2 on
27.05.2015. Wherein, the defendant No.2 directed to
the plaintiff No.3, the defendant No 3 and 4, to obtain
succession certificate from competent court of law.
Afterwords plaintiffs have suit bearing O.S.No
4958/2015 on 08.06.2015 and the defendant No.4 has
filed suit bearing O.S.No 8210/2015 on 26.09.2015.
The defendant No.4 filed suit after lapse of 60 days
after receiving endorsement/Ex.D.19. Therefore, I am
of the opinion that, in both suit statutory notice is not
required
70. Further, this Court perused the first day
order sheet of both suit and check list. Wherein,
directed to register the both suit. The defendant No.5
and 6 have not at all challenge said registration order.
So itself disclosed, after considering facts of case,
78 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
officer is directed to register the suits. In supported of
my view I have relied on Judgment of Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka rendered in Irappa Basappa
Kudhachi VS State of Karnatak (1996(2) KLJ 591).
Therefore, it is held that both suit are maintainable
under law. Accordingly, issue No 6 in O.S.No
8210/2015 answered in the negative.
ISSUE No.3 in O.S.No 8210/2015.
71. The plaintiffs have obtained heirship
certificate/Ex.P.3/Ex.D.16 from office of defendant
No.7. The plaintiff No.3 is not at relationship with
deceased Basavaraj V.Hiremath and she is divorced
lady from him and not class-I legal heir of deceased.
Inspite of that, within short time the plaintiff No.3
obtained succession certificate from defendant No.7.
First of all, the plaintiff No.3 is not wife and class-I
79 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
legal heir of deceased Basavaraj V.Hiremath. She has
obtained the succession certificate suppressing true
material facts i.e., the plaintiff No.3 is not wife of
deceased Basavaraj V Hiremath and she took divorced
from him. Therefore, it is held that, succession
certificate/Ex.P.3/Ex.D.16 is issued in favour of the
plaintiff No.3 is illegal one. Accordingly, issued No.3 in
O.S.No.8210/2015 is answered in the affirmative.
ISSUE No.5 in O.S.No,4958/2015.
72. The plaintiffs have claiming possession and
ownership of properties described in suit ‘A’ schedule
of their plaint. In the course of arguments, the learned
counsel for plaintiffs urged that while vacating H.No
C/8 Berlie Street Shanthi Nagar Bengaluru, the
plaintiffs have taken and retained the properties
described in ‘A’ schedule of plaint. Therefore, relief (e)
80 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
is frustrated. Accordingly, issue No.5 in O.S.No
4958/2015 answered in the negative.
Issue No.2, 3 and 6 in O.S.No 4958/2015 and
issue No.4 and 5 in O.S.No 8210/2015.
73. The plaintiff No.1 to 3 in O.S.No 4958/2015
are claiming that there are successors and legal heirs
of deceased Basavaraj V.Hiremath. To effect division in
schedule properties as per their share. Further, they
have sought for declaration relief (in a negative form)
that is to declare that defendant No.4 is not related to
their family and restrained her from alienating the suit
‘A’ schedule properties. The defendant No.1 and 2 are
directed disburse the death benefits of Basavaraj V.
Hiremath to plaintiffs. At same they have claiming
permanent injunction against defendant No.1 and 2
81 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
not to disburse suit ‘B’ schedule amount. The plaintiffs
of this suit claimed total seven relief.
74. The plaintiff in O.S.No 8210/2015 claiming
relief of declaration of her legal status with deceased
Basavaraj V. Hiremath and succession certificate
issued in favour of defendant No.1 to 3 is illegal.
Further, in this suit also, the plaintiff claiming
wonderful relief i.e., The defendant 5 is directed
disburse the death benefits of Basavaraj V. Hiremath
to plaintiff by granting mandatory injunction. At same
she claiming permanent injunction against defendant
No.6 not to disburse service and monetary benefits of
deceased Basavaraj V.Hiremath. Another important
relied claimed by plaintiff of this suit is issue
mandatory injunction against defendant No.6, to
provide job to her on the ground of compassionate.
82 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
75. While assigning reasons and deciding the
issue No 1, 4 and 7 in O.S.No 4958/2015 and issue
No. 1, 2 and additional No.1 in O.S.No. 8210/2015.
This Court held that, the plaintiff No.1 and 2 in O.S.No
4958/2015 (defendant No.1 and 2 in O.S.No
8210/2015) are children of deceased Basavaraj
V.Hiremath, born out wed lock with plaintiff No.3 who
is divorced wife of deceased. This facts is unequivocally
admitted by defendant No.4 (plaintiff in O.S.No
8210/2015. The plaintiff No.1 and 2 being son and
daughter of deceased, both are class-I heir of deceased
as per schedule of Hindu Succession Act.
76. The plaintiff No.3 in O.S.No 4958/2015
(defendant No.1 is O.S.No 8210/2015 is utterly fails
prove that, again she got remarry with him
83 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
immediately after mutual consent decree for
dissolution of her marriage with deceased Basavaraj
V.Hiremath. In cross-examination PW.1 unequivocally
admitted that, she was obtained divorce from
deceased. So she is not wife and/or not having any
kind of relationship with properties left by deceased
and/or with deceased. At this stage, this Court has
relied on memorandum of settlement presented in
MC.No2385/2012. For better appreciation condition
No.I(2) and I(5) are reiterated;
I. The aforesaid petition was referred to mediation for
resolving the dispute between the parties. In the course of
mediation, they have resolved their dispute and have agreed
to following terms and conditions:-
(1) XXX XXX XXX
(2) The relationship between the petitioner (deceased
Basavaraj V.Hiremath and respondent( plaintiff No.3) has not
been conducive and hence the respondent due to differences
between her and the petitioner has left the petitioner’s
company and have been living separately since 10.04.2011
and despite several attempts of settlement and reconciliation
between the parties and their elders, the matter could not be
84 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
settled and hence, both parties namely petitioner and the
respondent have agreed to end their relationship by decree of
divorce.
(3) XXX XXX XXX
(4) XXX XXX XXX
(5) The petitioner and respondent agreed that they shall
not have any claims whatsoever against each other in respect
of movable immovable property or maintenance/alimony
claims.
77. This Court held that, the defendant No.4
proved that, Basavaraj V.Hiremath was married with
her after obtaining mutual consent decree for
dissolution of his marriage with plaintiff No.3. Further,
it is held that, she was resided with deceased during
his life time and thereafter a short time at C/08
Shanthi Nagar police quarters, Near Nanjappa Circle,
Bengaluru. The defendant No.4 has proved she is wife
of deceased. Therefore, she is also class-I heir of
deceased.
85 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
78. On considering these admitted facts and
proved fact, this Court held that, the plaintiff No.3 is
being divorced wife of deceased Basavaraj V.Hiremath,
She is not at all relationship with deceased and his
properties. The defendant No.4 married with deceased
after granting decree for divorce, the deceased need
seek permission from his head office to marry with
defendant No.4 during his life time. Therefore,
contention taken by defendant No.1 and 2 not
applicable to suit bearing O.S.No.8210/2015.
79. In present suits, Basavaraj V Hiremath was
intimated to head of officer/defendant No.2 after
marriage with plaintiff No.3. This job of deceased was
good, but next two parts or events are not intimated to
office of defendant No.2 about firstly his marriage
divorce with plaintiff No.3 and secondly his remarriage
86 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
with defendant No.4 within stipulated time. But non
intimating of remarriage of defendant No.4 to
defendant No.2 in particular form, could not deprived
legal rights of defendant No.4. Therefore, the plaintiff
No.1 and 2 and defendant No.4 is O.S.No 4958/2015
(defendant No.1 and 2 and plaintiff in O.S.No
8210/2015) are equally entitle share in service and
monetary benefits and/or properties described in suit
‘B’ schedule. They are not entitled permanent
injunction as claimed by both parties, These parties
except plaintiff No.3 entitle for receive amount as per
their share and they also entitle for declaration of their
legal status with deceased Basavaraj V.Hiremath.
80. The plaintiff No.3 and defendant No.3 have
played fraud on Court while obtaining compromise
decree in O.S.No 34/2015 on file before learned Senior
87 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
Civil Judge and JMFC Hungund on 08.04.2015.
Further, the plaintiff No.3 suppressed the true and
relevant material, while obtaining heirship certificate
from office of defendant No.7. In these suit also she
having knowledge of relationship of defendant No.4
with deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath, She has
suppressed the relevant facts before Court. Therefore,
this Court relied Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court
as under;
Ramjas Foundation Vs Union of India
21.The principle that a person who does not come
to the Court with clean hands is not entitled to
be heard on the merits of his grievance and, in
any case, such person is not entitled to any relief is
applicable not only to the petitions filed under
Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution but
also to the cases instituted in others courts and
judicial forums. The object underlying the
principle is that every Court is not only entitled but
is duty bound to protect itself from unscrupulous
litigants who do not have any respect for truth and
who try to pollute the stream of justice by
resorting to falsehood or by making
misstatement or by suppressing facts which
have bearing on adjudication of the issue(s)
arising in the case. (underlying by me, for emphases)
88 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
Aforesaid reiterated in recent Judgment passed
by Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Maxim India
Integrated Circuit Design (P) Ltd Vs Andappa & Ors (Civil
Appeals No 3650-3655/2018 Dtd 02.01.2025). Therefore,
the plaintiff No.3 is not entitle for relief claimed.
Therefore, issue No.2, 3 and 6 in O.S.No 4958/2015
are answered in the partly affirmative and issue
No.4 and 5 in O.S.No 8210/2015 answered in the
partly affirmative.
ISSUE No.8 in O.S.No 4958/2015 and ISSUE No.7 is
O.S.No8210/2015.
81. For going reasons and finding on issues, I
have proceed to pass following;
89 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
ORDERS
The suit of plaintiff No.1 to 3 i.e.,
O.S.No 4958/2015 and suit of plaintiff i.e.,
O.S.No 8210/2015 are hereby partly decreed.
Further, it is declared that, the plaintiff
No.1 and 2 in O.S.No 4958/2015 (defendant
No.1 and 2 in O.S.No 8210/2015) are declared
that both are being son and
daughter/children of deceased Basavaraj V.
Hiremath as class-I legal heir and defendant
No.4 in O.S.No 4958/2015 (plaintiff in O.S.No
8210/2015) is declared that being wife of
deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath as class-I
legal heir.
Further, declared that these (son, daughter
and wife of deceased) have equal right to
receive amount described in suit ‘B’ schedule
properties/service and monetary benefits of
deceased Basavaraj V.Hiremath.
90 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
The defendant No.2 in O.S.No 4958/2015
(defendant No.6 in O.S.No 8210/2015) hereby
directed to equally i.e., 1/3 each disbursed the
amount described in suit ‘B’ schedule
properties/service and monetary benefits of
deceased Basavaraj V.Hiremath in favour of
the plaintiff No.1 and 2 in O.S.No 4958/2015
(defendant No.1 and 2 in O.S.No 8210/2015)
and defendant No.4 in O.S.No 4958/2015
(plaintiff in O.S.No 8210/2015) within 60 days
from the date of this order.
The plaintiff No.1 and 2 in O.S.No
4958/2015 (defendant No.1 and 2 in O.S.No
8210/2015) and defendant No.4 in O.S.No
4958/2015 (plaintiff in O.S.No 8210/2015)
are class-I legal heir of deceased Basavaraj V.
Hiremath. Therefore the defendant No.1 in
O.S.No 4958/2015 (defendant No.5 in O.S.No
8210/2015) directed to consider who is
eligible candidate for appointment on ground
91 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
of compassionate due to death of Basavaraj
V.Hiremath in service within reasonable time.
Further declared that succession/heirship
certificate issued by defendant No.7 is O.S.No
8210/2015 is not in accordance with law.
Therefore, the plaintiff No.3 is directed to
returned the said certificate to office of
defendant No.7 within 30 days from the date
of this order.
Other reliefs claimed in both suit (O.S.No
4958/2015 and in O.S.No 8210/2015) are
hereby dismissed.
On considering relief claimed for both
parties and their relationship, no order passed
as to cost.
Office is directed to draw decree accordingly.
92 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
Officer is further directed to keep the
original Judgment in O.S.No 4958/2015 and
it’s copy keep in O.S.No.8210/2015
(Typed by the Stenographer on my dictation, the transcript revised and then
pronounced by me in open court on this the 13th day of January, 2025)
(Sri. I. P. Naik)
LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH-64), BENGALURU CITY.
ANNEXURES
1. List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff:-
PW1 : Smt.Sudha
PW2 : Vasudev Achar
PW3 : Savitha Poojari
2. List of documents marked for the plaintiff :
Ex.P1 : RTC
Ex.P2 : Endorsement
Ex.P3 : Survival Certificate
Ex.P4 & 5 : Account extract
Ex.P6 : Photo
93 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
Ex.P7 : CD
Ex.P8 : Postal receipt
Ex.P.9 & 10 : 2 invitation Cards
Ex.P11 to 14 : 4 receipts
Ex.P.15 : Form No.6
Ex.P.16 : Letter dt: 02.05.2015
Ex.P.17 & 18 : 2 postal acknowledgment
Ex.P.19 & 20 : 2 postal receipt
Ex.P.21 : Endorsement
Ex.P.22 : Invitation card from Mahalakshmi
Temple
Ex.P.23 : Death certificate
Ex.P.24 : List of the family members of the
deceased.
3. List of witnesses examined for the defendant:
DW1 : Smt.Rajeshwari
DW2 : Jagadish
DW3 : Shabbin Hussain
DW4 : Mahadevaiah
DW5 : Venkatesh Chintaguntala
DW6 : Hiremath.N.D
94 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
4. List of documents marked for the defendant:
Ex.D.1 : Divorce proceedings from Family court.
Ex.D.2 : Copy of Memorandum of Settlement in
M.C.No.2385/2012.
Ex.D.3 : Employee I.D card of the deceased.
Ex.D.4 : Marriage receipt dated 18.02.2013.
Ex.D.5 : Marriage certificate.
Ex.D.6 : Smart Card of Police
Ex.D.7 : Order sheet in M.C.No.2385/2012
Ex.D.8 : Decree copy in M.C.No.2385/2012
Ex.D.9 : Memorandum of Settlement in
M.C.No.2385/2012.
Ex.D.10 : Death certificate.
Ex.D.11 : Police Notice
Ex.D.12 : Letter to Tahisildar.
Ex.D.13 : Receipt
Ex.D.14 : Letter to Tahsildar
Ex.D.15 : Receipt
Ex.D.16 : List of members of the deceased family
Ex.D.17 : Letter to Tahsildar
Ex.D.18 : Letter to DG and IGP
Ex.D.19 : Endorsement from the office of theDGP
and IGP.
95 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
Ex.D.20 : Application U/s.174 of Cr.P.C.
Ex.D.21 : Complaint
Ex.D.22 : Order sheet in O.S.No.34/2015
Ex.D.23 : Plaint Copy of O.S.No.34/2015
Ex.D.24 : Compromise Order in O.s.No.34/2015
Ex.D.25 : Copy of the Compromise decree-E-
stamp.
Ex.D.26 : Application filed under RTI Act.
Ex.D.27 : No due certificate.
Ex.D.28 : LIC Policy
Ex.D.29 : Copy of the Compromise petition
Ex.D.30 : Letter to Bank manager
Ex.D.31 : Letter of undertaking.
Ex.D.32 : Photos
to 36
Ex.D.37 : Invoice
Digitally signed
irappanna (Sri. I.by
P. irappanna
Naik)
Pavadi Pavadi Naik
LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH-64),Date: 2025.01.13
BENGALURU CITY.
Naik 17:08:13 +0530
96 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
(order typed vide separate sheet)
ORDERS
The suit of plaintiff No.1 to 3
i.e., O.S.No 4958/2015 and suit
of plaintiff i.e., O.S.No 8210/2015
are hereby partly decreed.
Further, it is declared that, the
plaintiff No.1 and 2 in O.S.No
4958/2015 (defendant No.1 and 2
in O.S.No 8210/2015) are
declared that both are being son
and daughter/children of
deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath
as class-I legal heir and defendant
No.4 in O.S.No 4958/2015
(plaintiff in O.S.No 8210/2015) is
declared that being wife of
deceased Basavaraj V. Hiremath
as class-I legal heir.
97 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
Further, declared that these
(son, daughter and wife of
deceased) have equal right to
receive amount described in suit
‘B’ schedule properties/service
and monetary benefits of
deceased Basavaraj V.Hiremath.
The defendant No.2 in O.S.No
4958/2015 (defendant No.6 in
O.S.No 8210/2015) hereby
directed to equally i.e., 1/3 each
disbursed the amount described
in suit ‘B’ schedule
properties/service and monetary
benefits of deceased Basavaraj
V.Hiremath in favour of the
plaintiff No.1 and 2 in O.S.No
4958/2015 (defendant No.1 and 2
in O.S.No 8210/2015) and
defendant No.4 in O.S.No
4958/2015 (plaintiff in O.S.No
8210/2015) within 60 days from
the date of this order.
98 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
The plaintiff No.1 and 2 in
O.S.No 4958/2015 (defendant
No.1 and 2 in O.S.No 8210/2015)
and defendant No.4 in O.S.No
4958/2015 (plaintiff in O.S.No
8210/2015) are class-I legal heir
of deceased Basavaraj V.
Hiremath. Therefore the
defendant No.1 in O.S.No
4958/2015 (defendant No.5 in
O.S.No 8210/2015) directed to
consider who is eligible candidate
for appointment on ground of
compassionate due to death of
Basavaraj V.Hiremath in service
within reasonable time.
Further declared that succession/heirship certificate issued by defendant No.7 is O.S.No 8210/2015 is not in
accordance with law. Therefore,
the plaintiff No.3 is directed to
returned the said certificate to
99 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015
office of defendant No.7 within 30
days from the date of this order.
Other reliefs claimed in both
suit (O.S.No 4958/2015 and in
O.S.No 8210/2015) are hereby
dismissed.
On considering relief claimed
for both parties and their
relationship, no order passed as
to cost.
Office is directed to draw decree
accordingly.
Office is further directed to keep
the original Judgment in O.S.No
4958/2015 and it’s copy kept in
O.S.No.8210/2015.
(Sri. I. P. Naik)
LXIII ACCL & SJ (CCH-64),
BENGALURU CITY.
100 O.S.No 4958/2015
C/w.
O.S.No.8210/2015