INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT = notification or order, which specifically authorize the Senior Civil Judges to take cognizance of the proceedings under the Act.= This Court in R.O.C.No.40/So/72.2 – under the provision of Section 19 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972 (Act 19 of 1972) and in super cession of the previous Notification on the subject, authorized all Subordinate Judges (including the Additional Judges in the City Civil Courts) to take cognizance of any proceedings under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, (Act 39 of 1925) which cannot be disposed of by the District Delegates.


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH
AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

 

WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

 

PRESENT

 

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

 

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.46 OF 2010

 

Between:


Ambadipudi Nagaratnamma

..... APPELLANT

AND

 

To whom so ever it may concern


....RESPONDENT


The Court made the following: 

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

 

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.46 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 384 (1) of the India Succession Act, 1925 (for short, “the Act”), is directed against the order, dated 28.10.2009, in S.O.P.No.32 of 2009, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sathupalli, whereunder and whereby, the petition, filed for issuance of the succession certificate, was dismissed on the ground that there was no notification or order, which specifically authorize the Senior Civil Judges to take cognizance of the proceedings under the Act.

2.   This Court in R.O.C.No.40/So/72.2 – under the provision of Section 19 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972 (Act 19 of 1972) and in super cession of the previous Notification on the subject, authorized all Subordinate Judges (including the Additional Judges in the City Civil Courts) to take cognizance of any proceedings under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, (Act 39 of 1925) which cannot be disposed of by the District Delegates.

3.      Therefore, in view of the above proceedings, this Court authorized all the Subordinate Judges to take cognizance of the proceedings under Indian Succession Act.  Hence, the impugned order is not in accordance with law and the same is liable to be set aside.

4.      Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order, and the trial Court shall take cognizance of the proceedings under the Act.  There shall be no order as to costs.

_______________
K.C. BHANU, J

March 10, 2010

Note: Issue C.C. of the order within four days.
B/O.MD/YVL

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.