1. This judgment according to law arises out of a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the sole appellant, against respondents-1 and 2, under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 questioning the, validity and legality of certain parts of the adjudications made by, and set forth in para 2, infra.
2. Orders dated 5.6.2000, of the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, (Enquiry Court) made in S.O.P. No. 369 of 1995 of its file and the Decree of even date that followed the same therein.
3. Perused the material papers of the Record.
4. Arguments were heard of the learned Counsel for the sole appellant and the learned Counsel for contesting Respondent No. 1.
5. Sole appellant in this C.M.A. correspondents to 1st petitioner in the said O.P.369 of 1995, of the file of the said Enquiry Court. R-1 herein correspondents to sole respondent in the said O.P.R-2 herein corresponds to co-petitioner, with the 1st petitioner in the O.P.
6. The deceased cover by S.O.P. in respect of whose assets, the succession certificate is applied, for, is Tallapalli Venkata Chandra Sekhar. Admittedly, the 1st petitioner in S.O.P. is widow wife and 2nd petitioner is their minor daughter, aged about 5 years. Sole respondent in S.O.P. is the mother of the deceased.
7. The parties are hereinafter referred to as such as in the immediately preceding paragraph, as the wife, minor daughter and mother, unless, otherwise, so specified.
8. The wife and the minor daughter jointly filed the S.O.P.369 of 1995 against the mother in the said Enquiry Court, under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, for grant of succession certificate in respect of 1/3rd share of each of them, making total share of 2/3rd in the monies due to the deceased, under L.I.C. Policies, etc, and, certain amounts due to him towards death benefits, which accrued to him, as an employees of A.P.S.R.T.C. etc, while urging that the mother will be entitled to the remaining 1/3rd share therein etc., etc., etc.
9. The mother filed a counter in the said S.O.P.369 of 1995, inter alia, opposing grant of succession certificate in favour of either the wife or the minor daughter, each for 1/3rd share on, otherwise, to any share what so ever urging, that the deceased committed suicide and died because of the character of the wife etc., and that the minor daughter was not born to the wife through the deceased, etc., etc., and that, hence, the mother herself, only, is entitled for all the monies claimed in the S.O.P. and that, hence, the S.O.P. has to be dismissed in toto, with costs to the mother, etc., etc., etc.
10. After settlement of the point therein, the said Enquiry Court enquired into the said S.O.P.369 of 1995, in the process whereof, it recorded the oral evidence, P.W.1 and R.W.1 to R.W.4, and, exhibited the documentary evidence, by way of Exs.A1 to A7 and Exs.B1 to B6, and Exs XI to XII, and later, after due arguments thereinto finally adjudicated thereupon, by its now the impugned Orders, dated 5.6.2000, set forth in para-2, supra, as under:-
(a) refused to award any Succession Certificate in favour of the wife for 1/3rd share or any share, in respect of any of the monies claimed in the S.O.P. and hence, dismissed the S.O.P in respect of the wife (1st petitioner);
(b) granted Succession Certificate in favour of the minor daughter for 1/2 share in the monies claimed in the O.P. directing to investment thereof, in a Nationalised Bank, etc., till she attain majority; and
(c) directed the parties to the S.O.P. to bear their own respective costs incurred therein.
11. Aggrieved thereby, and hence, questioning the validity and legality of the foregoing adjudications, but, only, insofar as the same refused to award succession certificate in her favour, the wife corresponding to the 1st petitioner filed the present C.M.A. as set forth, in Para 1, supra, read with para 2, supra.
12. The minor daughter, and the mother, corresponding, respectively to 2nd petitioner, and sole respondent, in the S.O.P did not file any independent C.M.As, questioning the foregoing impugned Orders and adjudications, or any part or parts thereof, or, findings recorded thereby on any aspect, or aspects.
13. Nor did the minor daughter, or, mother, file any cross objections, in the present C.M.A. questioning the foregoing impugned Orders, or, adjudications, or any part, or, parts, thereof, or, any findings recorded thereby on any aspect or aspects.
14. Hence the impugned orders set forth in para-2 supra, and, the adjudications made thereby and set forth in Para-10, supra, became final and binding on all" the concerned due to efflux of time prescribed by law to question the same, except insofar as the same, are questioned by the sole appellant herein (wife).
15. Consequently, the findings of the said Enquiry Court, inter alia, to the effect that, the said minor daughter is the legitimate daughter of wife and the deceased, and, hence, is class-1 heir, became final and binding all the concerned. Hence, this aspect does not arise for re- consideration or probing fresh into it, at all,
16. As set forth in Para-6 Supra, the relationship between the parties is admitted, and is not in dispute, therefore, under the schedule, read with Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Enactment of 1956) all of them being, the wife, minor daughter, and the mother, will be Class-1 heirs of the said deceased, and, hence, will be entitled each to 1/3rd share in all his properties and the monies statutorily, by way of intestate succession. None of them claimed testamentary succession, through the deceased.
17. So, therefore, the statutory intestate succession has to follow, as aforesaid. So, each will be entitled to 1/3rd share.
18. However, the mother, pleaded deviation of the said statutory succession in respect of the wife on the ground that she is not entitled for the same, because of the statutory bar contained in Section 25 of the said Enactment of 1956, and, that the minor daughter is an illegitimate daughter, etc.
19. In respect of the objection as to the minor daughter, it is dealt with and decided by this Court in sub-para (b) of Para 10, supra.
20. In respect of the wife, voluminous oral evidence, covered by the evidence of R.Ws.1 to R.W.4, and documentary evidence, covered by Exs.B 1 to B6, and, Exs.XI to XII, was adduced by the mother.
21. However, I am of the opinion that, even if, this entire material set forth in the immediately preceding paragraph, is accepted, in toto, and, the evidence of P.W.1 (wife), and her documentary evidence, covered by Exs.A1 to A7, is rejected, in toto, for a moment, still, I am of the opinion, that Section 25 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, cannot and will not operate as a statutory bar, for the wife to inherit, or, apply for succession certificate, inter alia, in respect of the monies due to her late husband, being, the deceased.
22. A direct examination of Section 25 of the said Succession Act, 1956, and even a superficial reading thereof, not to speak of any deep or, critical study thereof, in my opinion, will make it, manifest and striking, that, the statutory bar, imposed thereby, is, only, in respect of a legal heir, firstly, who commits murder, or, secondly, who abets commission of murder, that too, such murder should be in furtherance of the murderer's who so murdered with aim, or object to succeed to the property of the murdered (Deceased). An analysis, thereof, and, critical study thereof, will make the same manifest, striking and beyond doubt.
23. In the case, on hand the mother ultimately urged, that, because of the unchaste character of the wife, and because of her illicit intimacy with a third person, unable to bear the same, the deceased-husband committed suicide, etc. In respect thereof, there is voluminous evidence, as set forth in Para-20, supra
24. However, as already observed in Para-21, supra, even, if, the voluminous evidence is accepted, till, this material, undoubtedly, at best, will only, prove the same, i.e., the deceased-husband committed suicide i.e., killed himself voluntarily, because of his wife's alleged illicit intimacy and bad character, etc., etc., etc.
25. So, therefore, it is manifest, that, none of the statutory requirements, contained in the said Section 25, prevail in the case, on hand, at all.
26. Even according to the mother, because, the death of the deceased was not a murder by the wife within the statutory meaning contemplation, scope and ambit of the word "murder" as defined in Section 300 IPC. It is, only, a suicide, i.e., one killing himself, at his volition. Again, the cause for murder, that is for killing himself of the deceased, is the unchastity, etc., of the wife, but not at all with a view, or, object, to succeed to the properties, at all.
27. The said Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, in my opinion, does not, even remotely, cover, or, govern a case of the present nature, as set forth in immediately preceding paragraph, as well as, in the foregoing rest of the relevant pargraphs. Hence, the provisions thereof, are not attracted to case on hand.
28. I, therefore, record my finding, to the effect, that Section 25 of the said Act, is not at all a statutory bar for the wife, to inherit, or, succeed, inter alia, to the monies due to the deceased-husband along with all other heirs in the case on hand.
29. It is the duty of the Court to implement the law as it stands. The Court cannot compare, or read, something which is not therein the plain language of the section, or, which, even does not give scope, even remotely, to draw the different meanings to the word, "murder", employed therein, and, also, the cause for murder, mentioned therein.
30. Hence, further probing into, and examination the voluminous, oral and documentary evidence, again by Appellate Court, in this C.M.A do not arise, and the same is not warranted.
31. Had there been proof of murder, then, it could have been so done.
32. Here even according to the mother, it is only, a suicide case, as aforesaid.
33. Hence, the Enquiry Court, erroneously found, that, the wife is not entitled for her share, because of the bar under the said Section 25 of the Act. Hence, this has to be corrected by recording, that, the wife is entitled for 1/3rd share in the monies claimed in the O.P. as Class-1 heir of the deceased, of her deceased husband, and, hence, the same is accordingly hereby recorded.
34. Because, as set forth in Para-16, supra, the wife, minor daughter and mother are entitled for 1/3rd share in the assets of deceased, statutorily, and, now that, the wife is also being given her 1/3rd share, and when the mother is entitled for 1/3rd share, then, there will remain, only, another 1/3rd share available to the minor daughter, but not 1/2 share, as awarded by the Enquiry Court.
35. Hence, the share of this minor daughter, is bound to be reduced by this Court to 1/3rd share, to make all the three shares equal, to being the Orders of the said Enquiry Court in consonance with the statutory law and to implement the spirit and letter thereof.
36. Hence, the impugned Orders have to be corrected and modified, accordingly, and, as being done, hereunder.
37. Hence, the High Court doth hereby adjudicate upon the C.M.A. as under:
I. modify the impugned Orders and the Decree, both, dated 5.6.2000, set forth in Para-2, supra, as under:
(a) set aside the same, insofar as the same refusing to award succession certificate in respect of 1/3rd share, to the 1st petitioner (wife) in the S.O.P.369 of 1995;
(b) Consequently adjudicate upon in respect thereof as that, the 1st petitioner (wife ) is entitled for 1/3rd share in the monies, due to the deceased, and covered by the said O.P.
(c) also, consequently, further adjudicate and clarify, that, the 2nd petitioner, viz., the minor daughter, as well, as the sole respondent (mother) are also entitled for each 1/3rd share, in the assets due to the deceased, along with the wife being entitled to other 1/3rd share.
II. not interfered with the foregoing impugned Orders, and the Decree on any other aspect, or, aspects; and III. direct the parties to the CMA, to bear their own respective costs incurred herein.
Comments