IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.207 OF 2007 Between: Mangalapurapu Aruna Sai .....APPELLANT AND Mangalapurapu Kanaka Mahalakshmi and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.207 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, (for short, “the Act”) is directed against the order, dated 30.10.2006, in Succession O.P.No.410 of 2004, on the file of the District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, whereunder and whereby, the petition filed for grant of Succession Certificate in favour of the appellant herein, was dismissed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: The appellant filed a petition under Sections 371 and 372 of the Act for grant of Succession Certificate on the ground that she was the foster daughter of one late Mangalapurapu Sree Venkateswarlu and Kanaka Mahalakshmi. During the life time, the said Sree Venkateswarlu worked as employee in Handloom Textiles Department and Sree Venkateswarlu and Kanaka Mahalakshmi were blessed with a male child by name Mangalapurapu Naga Vara Prasad Roy. The said Vara Prasad Roy married one Hema Vara Lakshmi Poornima and to them, four daughters were born. They are 1) M. Kanthi Chandra 2) M. Aruna Sai (appellant) 3) M. Sai Renuka and 4) M. Sai Rohini. The said Vara Prasad Roy is an employee in Food Corporation of India and he is staying away by virtue of his appointment. Sree Venkateswarlu and Kanaka Mahalakshmi lost confidence in Vara Prasad Roy as he did not evince any interest in the family affairs and customs of the family and his attitude towards them is always negative. Sree Venkateswarlu purchased properties with his own earnings and kept money in F.D.Rs., with respondent No.2 – Bank. Respondent No.1 is the wife of Sree Venkateswarlu. Sree Venkateswarlu executed a will on 30.05.2001 and registered the same under document No.87. As per the said will, the appellant is entitled for F.D.R. amounts lying with respondent No.2 and the appellant along with respondent No.1 approached respondent No.2 with necessary certificates for payment of F.D.R. amounts. Respondent No.2 made them to roam round the bank. As respondent No.2 – Bank did not pay the amounts to the appellant, she filed the present petition for issuance of succession certificate. 3. Respondent No.1 filed a counter that she has no objection for issuance of Succession Certificate. 4. Whereas, respondent No.2 filed the counter denying the petition averments and stated that the deceased Sree Venkateswarlu (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the deceased’) deposited the money with their Bank and unless the will is proved and all the legal heirs are brought on record, the appellant is not entitled to obtain Succession Certificate and that the appellant is not the sole legal heir of the deceased and hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. On behalf of the appellant, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-16 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW.1 was examined and no documents were marked. 6. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record dismissed the petition on the ground that there was no reference with regard to the fixed deposits i.e., Exs.A-2 to A-5 in the Will to be paid to the appellant. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. 7. Now the point for consideration is whether the order passed by the trial Court is correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Will was executed prior to depositing the amounts in the Bank under Exs.A-2 to A-5 and therefore, the question of mentioning about money covered by Fixed Deposits in the Will does not arise; that the Will specifically recites that the appellant is entitled not only for the properties covered under the Will, but also for any movable and immovable properties acquired subsequent to the Will; and therefore, the trial Court ought to have issued the Succession Certificate to the appellant and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 contended that the Will does not specifically mention about the payment of the Fixed Deposit amounts covered by Exs.A-2 to A-5 to the appellant; that the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition; and that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. It is not in dispute that on 30.05.2001, the deceased, Mangalapurapu Sree Venkateswarlu, executed a registered Will bequeathing all his properties in favour of the appellant under Ex.A-14. PW.2 is one of the attesters to the Will. Even the trial Court held that the Will is validly executed by the deceased in favour of the appellant, but the trial Court observed that the existence of Exs.A-2 to A- 5 have not been mentioned in the Will and refused to issue the Succession Certificate in favour of the appellant. Admittedly, certain amounts have been deposited under Fixed Deposit Receipts with respondent No.2 on 10.06.2002. 30.10.2002 and 15.11.2002. They were marked as Exs.A-2 to A-5. The Will was executed five months prior to depositing certain amounts under the Fixed Deposits. Therefore, the question of mentioning the amounts covered by Exs.A-2 to A-5 in the Will does not arise. It is recited in the Will that if any amounts that may be deposited or derived by the deceased in future, will also be bequeathed to the appellant. Then certainly she is entitled for issuance of probate as seen from Ex.A-14 - Will. It is clear that in future in any manner, in what ever type and from any body any movable or immovable properties are derived by the deceased, the testatrix is also entitled for the same. So, Exs.A-2 to A-5, which are movable properties deposited by the deceased subsequent to the execution of the Will, are also covered by the Will. Therefore, the trial Court ought to have issued the Succession Certificate as prayed for by the appellant. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, setting aside the impugned order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J June 18, 2010 MD