IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERAAD Wednesday, the 15th day of June, 2011 Present: Hon’ble Sri Justice N. Ravi Shankar Crl.R.C..No. 1263 of 2011 Between: Navathu Narasing Rao and others …Petitioner and The State of AP …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRL.R.C..No. 1263 of 2011 Judgment Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. This revision is filed by four petitioners questioning the order date: 28.3.2011 in Crl.M.P.No. 87 of 2011 in S.C.No. 418 of 2007 on the file of the court of IV Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District. The controversy pertains to return of two gold ornaments marked as Mos 4 and 5 in the trial of the sessions case and these Mos 4 and 5 are stated to be the property of the deceased Smt. Ram Bai. The four petitioners claim to be the children of the said Ram Bai. It is further seen that only, Navathu Narasing Rao, the first petitioner herein filed a petition for return of Mos 4 and 5. The trial Court first pointed out that petitioner did not claim Mos 4 and 5 during his evidence or at any time before delivery of judgment and therefore it is a minus point for him. It may be noted that if petitioner is otherwise entitled to MOs 4 and 5 being the son of the deceased the fact that he did not apply previously setting up a claim to Mos 4 and 5 cannot be a ground to refuse his request when there is no other claim to the property. Hence that ground cannot be sustained. 3. The trial court then in its order observed as follows: “It is not the exclusive property of the Petitioner-PW-1. Since the sons and daughters of deceased Rambai not claimed gold articles Mos 4 and 5, this court ordered to sent Mint. The court is not aware about the exact legal heirs of deceased Rambai. The petitioner alone is not entitled to claim the property. Hence I have answered this point against the petitioner”. 4. It is thus clear that what weighed with the trial court in refusing the relief is that all the legal heirs have not applied for return of the property and therefore it was not competent for it to grant the relief to the first petitioner, who alone applied for return of the property. 5. Having regard to the reasons given by the trial court, it shall now be open for the petitioners herein to apply for return of the property in question and the trial court shall consider their claim and if all the four petitioners are otherwise entitled to the property in question, the trial court may release the property in favour of one of them with the consent of other petitioners and if the petitioners are otherwise found not entitled to the property, the trial court may consider that aspect and pass appropriate order. 6. With the above direction the revision case is disposed off at the admission stage. _____________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. June 15, 2011. *BVS