THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE T MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C V NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Appeal No. 1502 of 2008 ORDER (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T Meena Kumari) The present writ appeal is filed questioning the order dated 8th September 2008 passed in W.P No. 19497 of 2008 which was filed seeking writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not returning the documents of Pamarthi Pagidamma in spite of discharging the debt under credit No. 787/3945 as per the Will dated 10-5-2004. The learned single Judge having heard the parties has chosen to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to respondent No. 2 Cooperative Credit Society to inform the petitioners as to the status of the loan said to have been borrowed by Koteswara Rao, by offering the property, in question, as security. It is also held by the learned single Judge that if the loan has been cleared, and if there is no dispute between Koteswara Rao and the writ petitioners, the documents shall be returned and if loan is still outstanding, the course of action has to be taken communicating to the petitioners and the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. It is the case of the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 herein, petitioners in the writ petition, that their mother Pagidamma executed a will dated 10-5-2004 bequeathing the disputed land in their favour and died on 10-6-2004 and a representation is also made to the respondent No.2 society that the loan amount has already been cleared for the land which was offered as security and for return of the documents. But, 2nd respondent society has not returned the documents to them though the loan amount was cleared. They claimed to return the documents only after the clearance of the loan. As the documents have not been returned, the impugned writ petition was filed. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned single Judge, the appellant, being 3rd party, who happened to be the brother of the writ petitioners, filed the writ appeal stating that the will said to have been executed by Pagidamma and relied upon by the respondents 4 and 5 is a fabricated one. It is also stated that the respondents 4 and 5 herein have to approach the competent civil court. Heard and perused the material available on record including the impugned order in the writ petition. Since the writ petitioners are relying upon a will said to have been executed by their mother in their favour and as the appellant is disputing the execution of the same, we are of the opinion that the matter involved disputed questions of fact and law, which requires adducing of sufficient evidence to prove the same in accordance with law. Under the above circumstances, we set aside the order of the learned single Judge and allow the writ appeal with a liberty to the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 to agitate their rights before the competent civil court. With the above observations, this writ appeal is allowed. No costs. --------------------------- T MEENA KUMARI J ---------------------------------- C V NAGARJUNA REDDY J Kvrk/25.02.2009 THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE T MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C V NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Appeal No. 1502 of 2008 (Order of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T Meena Kumari) 25th February 2009