Posts

Showing posts from 2015

prior to coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1956'), Section 32 read with Section 35 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, would govern the rule of succession of a Hindu female and, thereby, defendant Nos. 2 to 6 are the legal- heirs of the deceased Kishan Rao. Since the property was the absolute property or exclusive property of Narasamma, defendant Nos. 1 to 6 and 11 to 15 admitted that the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 7 to 10 are entitled to 1/21st share in the 1/3rd share of Rama Swamy irrespective of the rules governing succession of property by a female Hindu prior to 1956. That apart, under the original of Ex.B1, Rama Swamy is entitled to 1/3rd share in B schedule property which attained finality. If the contention of the plaintiff is accepted, it certainly amounts to annulling the decree and judgment. In view of Ex.B1 and admissions in pleadings, irrespective of succession of property of a Hindu female, who died intestate before commencement of the Act of 1956, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 7 to 10, along with Kishan Rao and the 1st defendant, are entitled to 1/7th share each in the 1/3rd share of Rama Swamy. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to 1/21st share; defendant Nos. 11 to 15, being legal-heirs of the deceased 1st defendant, are entitled to 1/3rd share + 1/21st share i.e. 8/21st share; defendant Nos. 2 to 6, being legal-heirs of the deceased Kishan Rao, are entitled to 1/3rd share + 1/21st share i.e. 8/21st share and defendant Nos. 7 to 10 are entitled to 1/21st share each. Since the 7th defendant is also died, the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 8 to 10 are entitled to 1/4th share each in the 1/21st share of the 7th defendant i.e. 1/84th share each. Thereby, the plaintiff is entitled to 5/84th share i.e. 1/21st +1/84th share; defendant Nos. 2 to 6 are entitled to 32/84th share; defendant Nos. 8 to 10 are entitled to 5/84th share each and defendant Nos. 11 to 15 are entitled to 32/84th share in A and B schedule property. Accordingly, the points are answered. In Re. Point No. 3: In the result, the appeals are allowed; setting aside the decree and judgment in O.S.No. 441 of 1984 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dated 10-04-1996; passing a preliminary decree for partition of A and B schedule property into 84 equal shares and allotting 5/84th share each to the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 8 to 10; 32/84th share to defendant Nos. 2 to 6, being legal-heirs of Kishan Rao and 32/84th share to defendant Nos. 11 to 15, being legal-heirs of the deceased 1st defendant while directing defendant Nos. 2 to 6 to render true and correct account of income from A schedule property and pay 5/84th share each to the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 8 to 10 out of the income from A schedule property from the date of decree till delivery of possession. The plaintiff is at liberty file an application for ascertaining the income payable by defendant Nos. 2 to 6 from A schedule property. Pending miscellaneous petitions in both these appeals, if any, shall stand closed in consequence. No order as to costs.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY            

C.C.C.A.No. 94 OF 1996

20-03-2015

G.Lalitha Bai and othersAPPELLANTS    

G.R.Jaya Rao and othersRESPONDENTS      

Counsel for Appellants  :Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty

Counsel for 1st Respondent      :Sri K.Narasimha Chary
 Counsel for Respondents 2 to 6 :Sri Harender Pershad
 Counsel for Respondents 7 to 10:Sri J.V.Suryanarayana

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

? Cases referred:

1.      AIR 1956 SC 593* (1)
2.      AIR 1960 SC 335
3.      (1995) 4 SCC 572
4.      (2004) 7 SCC 233
5.      1973 (2) APLJ 10 (SN)
6.      1956 An.W.R.943
7.      AIR 1962 AP 226
8.      AIR 1974 SC 171
9.      AIR 2008 SC 543
10.     AIR 1974 SC 280 (1)
11.     AIR 1977 SC 1712
12.     (1992) 4 SCC 683
13.     (1921) 2 R.B. 608

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY            

C.C.C.A.No. 94 OF 1996
AND
C.C.C.A.No. 139 OF 2000

COMMON JUDGMENT:      
      These two appeals arose out of decree and judgment in O.S.No. 441 of
1…

Will genuineness= Except respondent No.1, Vasantha Devi did not have any blood relation. Appellant No.1 was adopted by the husband of Vasantha Devi much prior to her marriage with him. The fact that she went to the extent of filing a suit informa paupuris itself shows that she did not have cordial terms with the appellant No.1 and that she was almost in penury. In this connection, one needs to examine the sequence in which the two Wills were executed. When O.S.No.129 of 1976 filed by Vasantha Devi was pending, she has executed Will dated 11-3-1980. Under this Will, except a meager extent of Ac.2-00 given in favour of respondent No.2, nothing of significance was given by the testatrix to her sister and her family. The compromise decree was passed on 25-4-1981. The bitter feelings Vasantha Devi had towards appellant No.1 even after passing of the compromise decree are reflected in Ex.B-1 letter dated 30-10-1981, which was about six months after passing of the compromise decree. She has complained in that letter addressed to appellant No.1 that he has been appropriating rents of both the houses; that even when she was in hospital and has written letter, she has not received any reply and that though he was an adopted son, she has treated him with affection but he has let her down. She has finally cautioned him in that letter that if his mother does not come and see her, she may think of executing a fresh Will. Within less than four months of writing this letter, Vasantha Devi executed Ex.A-5 Will in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are none other than her own sister and niece. In these incontrovertible factual matrix, I am of the opinion that the Will is not shrouded by any suspicious circumstances and in the natural course of events that have taken place, the testatrix has obviously developed thorough dissatisfaction and disillusionment at the treatment meted out to her by appellant No.1 and his mother, resulting in her change of mind and making the threat hurled by her through Ex.B-1, a reality by executing Ex.A-5-Will. Indeed, a perusal of Ex.A-5-Will would show that the testatrix referred to Will dated 11-3-1990 and rescinded the same. From the evidence of appellant No.1, who was examined as DW-1, it is clear that he had admitted the signature of the testatrix while denying the execution of Ex.A-5 Will. In the face of the evidence of PW-3 to PW-5, which remained unshaken, it needs to be held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are able to prove Ex.A-5-Will as true and valid. Even if PW-1 and PW-2 did not have personal knowledge of the manner in which Vasantha Devi executed the Will, the same would not in any manner affect its genuineness. On the contrary, their non-involvement in the execution of the Will strengthens its genuineness as it was the testatrix who obviously wanted to bequeath the property to her only surviving blood relations, namely, her natural sister and her daughter.

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY        

APPEAL SUIT Nos.162 of 1997 and batch  

29-04-2015

Sri Ravada Appala Reddy and another Appellants

Kadambari Sarojini Devi and others Respondents

Counsel for the appellants: Sri M.Ram Mohan
                             for Sri M.S.R.Subrahmanyam

Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2: Sri V.L.N.G.K.Murthy
 Counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6: Sri G.Sudha
 Counsel for respondent Nos.3, 9 and 10: none appeared

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  


?CASES REFERRED:    

1. AIR 1964 SC 529
2. AIR 1959 SC 443


THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY        

APPEAL SUIT Nos.162 of 1997 and 1040 of 2000  

29.04.2015

The Court made the following:


COMMON JUDGMENT:                      
     The subject matter and the parties to both these appeals are
common.  Hence, they are heard and are disposed of together.

     A.S.No.162 of 1997 is filed by defendant Nos.8 and 9 in
O.S.No.35 of 1992 on the file of learned Subordinate Judge,
Pithapuram.  A.S.No.1…