Posts

Showing posts from August, 2013

JURISDICTION OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT IN I.P. PROCEEDINGS =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.

CMA 46 / 2010

CMASR 2318 / 2010
PETITIONERRESPONDENTAMBADIPUDI NAGARATNAMMA  VSTO WHOM SO EVER IT MAY CONCERNPET.ADV. : PULLA RAO YELLANKIRESP.ADV. : SUBJECT: INDIAN SUCCESSION ACTDISTRICT:  KHAMMAMPUBLISHED IN http://164.100.12.10/hcorders/orders/2010/cma/cma_46_2010.html
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH
AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TENPRESENTTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANUCIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.46 OF 2010Between:
Ambadipudi Nagaratnamma
..... APPELLANT
AND To whom so ever it may concern

....RESPONDENT

The Court made the following: 
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANUCIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.46 O

INDIAN SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE - WILL WITH IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES ALSO = whether in an O.P., filed under Section 372 of the Act, the Court can pronounce upon the validity of a Will said to have been executed by the deceased in respect of movable properties as well as immovable properties.= NO = whether it was competent for the Court to pronounce upon the legality or proof of Will, dated 21-11-2005 ? The Act provides for adjudication of the disputes of various kinds pertaining to the claims based upon testate and intestate succession. The facility of execution of a Will is created not only in respect of any items of movable, but also immovable properties. However, a dichotomy is maintained as to the adjudication of the claims in respect of movable properties on the one hand and immovable properties on the other. - Sections 370 and 372 of Part-X of the Act provide for grant of Succession Certificate in respect of movable properties, which are enlisted in sub-section (2) of Section 370. The mechanism provided for under Part-X cannot at all be pressed into service for adjudication of rights in respect of immovable properties. It is true that in the instant case, respondents 1 and 2 did not make any claim vis-à-vis an item of immovable property. However, their sole basis was the Will dated 21-11-2005 marked as Ex.A.2. If Ex.A.2 were to have been in respect of a movable property alone, the trial Court would have been certainly competent to pronounce upon the validity of a Will. However, a perusal of Ex.A.2 discloses that the testator has bequeathed an item of immovable property, namely plot No.42 in Sy.No.192 of Kondapur village, in favour of the respondents in equal shares. Once that is so, the proof or otherwise of Ex.A.2 cannot at all be pronounced upon by the trial Court.

CMA 1064 / 2010

CMASR 45833 / 2010

PETITIONERRESPONDENTMS. C.RAMYA BALA  VSCH. JAYARAM & 3 OTHERSPET.ADV. : VENKATARAMANARESP.ADV. : VANISUBJECT: INDIAN SUCCESSION ACTDISTRICT:  HYDERABADPUBLISHED IN http://164.100.12.10/hcorders/orders/2010/cma/cma_1064_2010.html * THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND * THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT
+ C.M.A.No.1064 of 2010
% 16.04.2013 
# C. RamyaBala.. Appellant               
And
$  Ch. Jayaram & others                               .. Respondents


!Counsel for the appellant         : Sri T.S.VenkataRamana
Counsel for respondents            : Ms. S. Vani

NOMINEE IS ONLY ENTITLED TO RECEIVE THE AMOUNTS , NOT FOR HERSELF ; WIDOW BEING CLASS 1 HEIR ENTITLED FOR A SHARE DESPITE OF FACT THAT SHE NEVER TAKE CARE OF HER HUSBAND = Admittedly, the appellant is the mother and the 1st respondent is the wife of the deceased namely G. Sharath Chandra, who died in a motor accident. Though the appellant contends that the 1st respondent did not attend on the deceased while he was undergoing treatment in the hospital for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident, and that she did not attend the funeral and last rites of the deceased, and therefore, she cannot be treated as wife and successor of the deceased and cannot claim any share in the amounts in question, the fact remains, the mother and widow of a Hindu male died intestate, come within the meaning of Class I heirs as specified in the schedule of the Act, as per the provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, and the property of the deceased firstly devolve upon them, along with other heirs as specified in the schedule. Thus, the 1st respondent, being the widow of the deceased, as one of the class I heirs of the deceased, is entitled to a share in the property of the deceased, along with the appellant, and accordingly, we hold so.

CMA 941 / 2010

CMASR 38730 / 2010
PETITIONERRESPONDENTG. BHAGYAREKHA @ SUJATHA  VSG. SIRISHA AND 5 OTHERSPET.ADV. : RAMACHANDRA RAORESP.ADV. : VENUGOPALSUBJECT: INDIAN SUCCESSION ACTDISTRICT:  WARANGALPUBLISHED IN http://164.100.12.10/hcorders/orders/2010/cma/cma_941_2010.html
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.941 of 2010

JUDGMENT:   (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana)

          This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated 30.08.2010 passed in O.P. No. 1634 of 2007 by the learned IV Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Warangal.
          Brief facts of the case are that the 1st respondent herein is the widow of late G. Sharath Chandra, who is no other than the son of the appellant herein and who died intestate in a motor accident. The
1st respondent stating that her husband G. Sharath Chandra died in a motor accident and that she being his legally wedded wife, is entitled to …

NO NOTICE AFTER TRANSFER OF THE CASE = admittedly, there is nothing on record to show that after transfer of the said I.P. from the District Court, Vizianagaram to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram, there was any notice to the appellant i.e., the appellant had no information about transfer of the said I.P. from the District Court, Vizianagaram to Court of Senior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram and also the date of hearing and hence, the appellant cannot be put to any blame nor can the case be dismissed as such, that too, for default Hence, C.M.A.No.296 of 2001 is allowed and the order, dated 29.12.2000, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District, in I.P.No.1 of 1999 is set aside.

CMA 453 / 2010

CMASR 6341 / 2001

PETITIONERRESPONDENTB.SRINIVASA RAO  VSANDHRA CEMENT LTD.VISK.& 23 ORSPET.ADV. : VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATIRESP.ADV. : RAJA RAOSUBJECT: INDIAN SUCCESSION ACTDISTRICT:  VIZIANAGARAMPUBLISHED IN http://164.100.12.10/hcorders/orders/2010/cma/cma_453_2010.html THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.296 of 2001 and 453 of 2010
COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri JusticeB.Prakash Rao)
          Since both the appeals are between the same parties and relate to the same matter, they are heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. C.M.A.No.296 of 2001 is filed against the order, dated 29.12.2000, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District, in I.P.No.1 of 1999, whereunder the said I.P. was dismissed for default. C.M.A.No.453 of 2010 is filed against the order, dated 11.10.2000, passed by the District Judge, Vizianagaram District, in I.P.No.…

Bona fide passenger or not - Claim = whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger or not is concerned, the evidence of A.W.1 is very clear that he went to the railway station for the purpose of dropping his father and his father purchased a ticket to go to Vijayawada from Chirala and boarded the train and as the train started, he left the station. Practically, the evidence of A.W.1 remained unchallenged. The statement of A.W.1 that his father purchased a ticket to travel in a passenger train remained unchallenged. There is no contrary evidence adduced by the railway administration to show that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. Perhaps, that is the reason why the Tribunal rightly placed an implicit reliance on the evidence of A.W.1. After taking into consideration the evidence of A.W.1., it can be said that the deceased was a bona fide passenger.= the Station Master, after receipt of message from the Keyman, informed the police. The police registered a case and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased. During the inquest, the police also examined A.W.1. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased died by falling from a running train. Similarly, the dead body was subjected to post mortem examination. The Doctor, who conducted the post mortem, categorically stated that the deceased sustained injuries as a result of falling from the train. There is no contra evidence adduced by the Railways to show that the case of the railway administration fall under anyone of the exceptions as mentioned under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. Further, the police, after completion of investigation, filed a final report stating that there was no foul play or suspicious circumstances resulting in the death of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly awarded the compensation. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

CMA 363 / 2010

CMASR 14681 / 2010
PETITIONERRESPONDENTTHE UNION OF INDIA, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, SECUNDERABAD  VSSMT. POLISETTY LAKSHMI SAROJINI & ANOTHER, PRAKASAM DISTRICTPET.ADV. : VENKATARAMANARESP.ADV. : NARAYANA REDDYSUBJECT: INDIAN SUCCESSION ACTDISTRICT:  HYDERABADpublished in  http://164.100.12.10/hcorders/orders/2010/cma/cma_363_2010.html IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
PRESENTTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU
C.M.A.No.363 of 2010.
Date:23.08.2011

Between:-
The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad.
      ..Appellant/Respondent And
P.Lakshmi Sarojini and others      .. Respondents/Applicants




JUDGMENT:-
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 20.01.2010, in O.A.A.No.60 of 2006 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the clai…