Case Note & Summary
The case involves a dispute over the distribution of provident fund, gratuity, and insurance amounts payable upon the death of Ramesh, who died on 09/08/2005 while working as a Junior Loading Clerk with Western Coalfields Limited. The appellants, who are the widow and children of the deceased (original defendants), claimed exclusive right to these amounts. The respondent No.1, the mother of the deceased (original plaintiff), claimed a share as a Class I heir under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. When her share was denied, she filed a suit seeking a declaration of her entitlement. The trial court decreed the suit, holding that the mother was entitled to a specific share in the provident fund dues and insurance policies. The first appellate court confirmed this decree. The appellants then filed a second appeal before the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined whether any substantial question of law arose. It noted that the courts below had concurrently found that the mother was a Class I heir and entitled to a share. The appellants argued that the amounts were not part of the estate, but the court rejected this, holding that provident fund, gratuity, and insurance amounts are part of the deceased's estate and subject to succession. The court found no error in the concurrent findings and dismissed the appeal, upholding the mother's right to a share.
Headnote
A) Hindu Succession Act - Succession to Property - Section 8, Schedule I Class I Heirs - Mother's Share - The mother of a deceased Hindu male is a Class I heir under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and is entitled to a share in the properties of the deceased, including provident fund, gratuity, and insurance amounts, which are treated as part of the estate. The court held that the concurrent decrees granting the mother a specific share were correct and did not raise any substantial question of law. (Paras 1-10)
B) Second Appeal - Interference with Concurrent Findings - Section 100 CPC - No Substantial Question of Law - The High Court, in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless a substantial question of law arises. The court held that the appellants failed to demonstrate any such question, and the appeal was dismissed. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the mother of a deceased employee is entitled to a share in the provident fund, gratuity, and insurance amounts payable upon the employee's death, and whether the concurrent findings of the courts below warrant interference in a second appeal.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the concurrent decrees of the courts below, and confirmed that the mother is entitled to a specific share in the provident fund, gratuity, and insurance amounts.
Law Points
- Hindu Succession Act
- 1956
- Section 8
- Section 10
- Class I heirs
- provident fund
- gratuity
- insurance
- succession
- mother's share
- concurrent findings
- second appeal
- substantial question of law
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (10) 139
Second Appeal No.299 of 2018
Smt. V.P. Thakare for appellants, Mr. N.A. Chouhan for respondent No.1, Mr. Yash Venkatraman h/f Mrs. Gouri Venkatraman for respondents No.2 & 3, Mr. J.S. Mokadam for respondent No.4, Mr. S.S. Nerkar for respondent No.5
Smt. Bharati Wd/o Rameshrao Atole, Ku. Mamta Rameshrao Atole, Ku. Sapana Rameshrao Atole, Ku. Deepali Rameshrao Atole (Dead), Master Aniruddha Rameshrao Atole
Smt. Bebitai Punjabrao Atole, The Chief General Manager, Western Coalfields Limited, Ballarpur Area, Superintendent of Mines Manager, Gouri Open Cast Mine – 2, Commissioner Coal Mine Provident Funds, The Life Insurance Corporation of India
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for declaration of share in provident fund, gratuity, and insurance amounts of deceased employee.
Remedy Sought
Respondent No.1 (mother) sought a declaration that she is entitled to a specific share in the provident fund dues and insurance policies payable upon the death of her son Ramesh.
Filing Reason
The appellants (widow and children) claimed exclusive right to the amounts, denying the mother's share.
Previous Decisions
The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the mother, and the first appellate court confirmed the decree.
Issues
Whether the mother of a deceased employee is entitled to a share in the provident fund, gratuity, and insurance amounts as a Class I heir under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below warrant interference in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the amounts are not part of the estate and that the mother is not entitled to a share.
Respondent No.1 argued that she is a Class I heir and entitled to a share under the Hindu Succession Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The mother of a deceased Hindu male is a Class I heir under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and is entitled to a share in the properties of the deceased, including provident fund, gratuity, and insurance amounts, which are part of the estate. Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in a second appeal unless a substantial question of law arises.
Judgment Excerpts
By this appeal, the original defendants have challenged concurrent orders passed by the two Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the respondent No.1 (original plaintiff), was decreed and it was held that she was entitled to specific share in the amount towards provident fund dues and insurance policies payable upon demise of Ramesh, who was husband of appellant No.1 and son of respondent No.1.
The said Ramesh was working with the respondents No.2 and 3 as a Junior Loading Clerk. He died on 09/08/2005 and a question arose as to disbursal of amounts towards gratuity, insurance policies and provident fund dues.
Procedural History
The suit was filed by respondent No.1 (mother) in the trial court, which decreed the suit. The appellants (defendants) appealed to the first appellate court, which confirmed the decree. The appellants then filed a second appeal before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 16/10/2019.
Acts & Sections
- Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Section 8, Section 10, Schedule I
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
