IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST (21ST) DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.254 OF 1994 Between:- Karunasree and two others …Appellants A n d Paka Radhamma …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.254 OF 1994 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22-12-1993 in O.S.No.229 of 1987, on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Kothagudem, wherein the said suit filed by the respondent herein, claiming one-third share out of Rs.1,85,000/-, being the terminal benefits received from Singareni Collieries Company Limited on account of death of her son Sudhershan, who was working in the said company and died while in service, was decreed-in-part awarding one-fourth share to the plaintiff. 2 . Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides. Perused the record. 3 . The plaintiff is the mother of the deceased Sudhershan, who was working in Singareni Collieries Company Limited. Appellants 2 and 3 (D-2 and D-3) are the daughters of Sudhershan through the first appellant (D-1). Sudhershan died on 24- 08-1987 due to gas poisoning inside the mine while he was on duty. According to the plaintiff, a sum of Rs.1,85,000/- was due under various heads from the company, being the death-cum-terminal benefits payable on account of death of Sudhershan. The plaintiff contends that herself and D-2 and D-3 alone are the legal heirs of deceased Sudhershan and so she is entitled for one-third share therein, but the first defendant has been refusing to give any share to the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleges that the first defendant is not the legally wedded wife of Sudhershan, but was only a kept mistress. 4. The first defendant, on the other hand, contends that her marriage with Sudhershan was performed at Bhadrachalam temple as per caste customs and it was an inter caste marriage and was not to the liking of her parents- in-law. She, therefore, contends that she is also the legal heir of the deceased Sudhershan, being his legally wedded wife. The first defendant would further contend that the amounts claimed by the plaintiff under various heads are not true and imaginary. According to her, the plaintiff is having substantial properties, both moveable and immoveable. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any share? If so, to what share and in what amounts? ii) To what relief? 6. During trial, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and her husband was examined as P.W.2 and no documents were marked on her behalf. The first defendant was examined as D.W.1 and two other witnesses D.Ws.2 and 3 were examined on behalf of the defendants and Exs.B-1 to B-26A were marked on defendants’ side. Ex.C-1 is the particulars of the amounts payable to the deceased Sudhershan as furnished by the company. 7. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the trial Court held that the first defendant is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Sudhershan. The trial Court also obtained the particulars of the amounts payable by the company to the deceased Sudhershan through Ex.C-1 and granted decree for payment of one- fourth share therein to the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff, being the mother, D-1 being the wife and D-2 and D-3 being the daughters of the deceased, are all class-I heirs and hence entitled to share equally in the said amount, which constituted the estate of the deceased. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed the present appeal. 8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/ defendants is that the plaintiff is not dependant on the deceased and, therefore, she does not come within the purview of the definition of the expression ‘family’ as defined under Section 2(g) of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Act, 1956 and, therefore, she is not entitled for any share in the amounts payable by the company to the deceased. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, would contend that the plaintiff, being the mother of the deceased, is a class-I heir and she is certainly entitled for equal share along with D-2 and D-3 in the estate of the deceased under the provisions of Hindu Succession Act and the first appellant/D-1 not being the legally wedded wife is not entitled for any share at all. 10. The trial Court, on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record, rightly held that the first appellant/D-1 is the legally wedded wife of deceased Sudhershan. In fact, the said finding had become final, as the respondent herein, the plaintiff, has not filed any cross-appeal challenging the said finding. Thus, the plaintiff, the mother, first defendant, the wife, and D-2 and D-3, the children, are all class-I heirs of the deceased Sudhershan under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants/D-1 to D-3 would contend that the plaintiff, though mother not being a dependant on the deceased, does not fall within the ambit of ‘family’ as defined under Section 2(g) of the Act and the provisions of the Act, which is a special enactment would prevail over the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. According to the appellants/defendants, the respondent/plaintiff is having substantial properties, both moveable and immoveable and, therefore, she was not dependant on the income of the deceased and, therefore, she cannot be treated as a member of the family as defined under Section 2(g). Firstly, no such plea is taken in the written statement by the appellants/defendants that the plaintiff does not answer the description of the family as defined under the Act and, therefore, she is not entitled for a share and hence no specific issue was also framed in that regard. Secondly, the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants has drawn attention to a scheme called Andhra Pradesh Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes, which is purported to have been evolved in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act, 1948. Section 2(g) of the scheme defines ‘family’ as meaning in the case of a male member, his wife, his children, whether married or unmarried, his dependent parents and his deceased son’s widow and children. The dependant parents are also included in the definition of the expression ‘family’. 12. The appellants/defendants would contend that the plaintiff was never dependant on the deceased and she had substantial properties. The plaintiff denies the same and she, in fact, filed the suit as an indigent person and she was permitted to sue as such. The defendants never made any effort to dis-pauper the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit by showing that the plaintiff was having substantial properties and, therefore, she was not an indigent person. There is no evidence on record to show that the plaintiff was having substantial properties or that she was not dependant on the deceased. In the absence of any such evidence and there being no specific plea raised by the defendants in their written statement pertaining to the contention presently raised, the said contention raised for the first time in the appeal, that too based on the provisions of a scheme, is untenable. The plaintiff, being the mother of the deceased and a class-I heir under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, is certainly entitled for an equal share in the estate of the deceased along with the defendants. 11. As the defendants have disputed the quantum of the amounts claimed by the plaintiff under various heads, the trial Court has called for the particulars from the company and Ex.C-1, the certificate issued by the Director, Personnel, Singareni Collieries Company Limited gives the details of the amounts as under: 1. Gratuity 46,730-16 2. F.B.I.S Deductions: i. Refund Accumulations 708-80 ii.Death claim 10,000-00 3. Janatha Personal accident Insurance Scheme 15,000-00 4. Group Personal Accident Insurance Scheme for executive 75,000-00 5. Co-employees contribution under S.I.M.M.A 44,088-00 6. C.M.P.F and F.P.S Directly payable by CMPF authorities. 7. Group Insurance scheme Directly payable by LIC of India 8. L.I.C 12. The correctness of the amounts, as furnished by the company under Ex.C-1 cannot, therefore, be disputed and the trial Court had rightly taken the same into consideration and granted one-fourth share therein to the plaintiff, who is also a class-I heir of the deceased along with D-1 to D-3 under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. 13. In the circumstances, it must be held that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court do not call for any interference. There are no merits in the appeal. 14. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 21st October, 2010 Lrkm