THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.999 of 1997 Dated: 02-02-2010 Between: Chaganti Indira Priya Darshini and another …Appellants A n d Smt.Chaganti Bhanumathi and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.999 of 1997 JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act assailing the order dated 05.08.1996 passed in O.P.No.816 of 1995 on the file of the II Additional District Judge-cum- Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, at Visakhapatnam, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the application filed under Section 192 of Indian Succession Act for appointment of curator to take possession of the schedule property and to collect the amounts from the respondents 2 to 4. 2. The appellants herein are the petitioners in O.P.No.816 of 1995. Appellant No.1 is the wife and appellant No.2 is the son of late Srinivas. The deceased Srinivas died intestate on 24.2.1995. His death is stated to be not a natural death. Respondent No.1 is the mother, respondent No.2 is father, respondent No.3 is brother and respondent No.4 is brother-in-law of deceased Srinivas. He has 2/3rd share in the petition schedule properties. Apprehending mismanagement of the properties by the respondents, the appellants- petitioners filed O.P No.816 of 1995 for appointment of a curator. 3. Respondent No.2 filed counter resisting the application. The principal ground urged by the 2nd respondent is that the application filed by the appellants-petitioners is barred by limitation. 4. The learned Additional District Judge framed the following issues for consideration:- 1. Whether the application is barred by law of limitation? 2. Whether the Curator can be appointed? 3. Whether the 6th respondent is the owner of the Cranes? 4. To what relief? 5. Both the parties consented before the trial Court to take up issue No.1 as a preliminary issue. Accordingly, on a consideration of the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, the learned Additional District Judge held issue No.1 against the appellants- petitioners and accordingly, dismissed the petition filed by them, by order dated 5.3.1996. The said order is assailed in this appeal. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants. None appeared on behalf of the respondents. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submit that the trial Court has not considered the material brought on record in right perspective and thereby, erred in recording a finding that the petition filed by the appellants under Section 192 of the Indian Succession Act is barred by limitation. 8. We have perused the order impugned in this appeal. 9. Indisputably, the application filed by the appellants-petitioners is beyond the limitation. Paragraph 12 of the order impugned in the appeal needs to be noted and it reads as hereunder:- “ Therefore, in view of the above decisions orders passed in petition u/s 5 of Limitation Act without issuing notice to other party, can be agitated while hearing the main application. The respondents are contending that Section 5 of Limitation Act is not applicable to the present application u/s 192 of Indian Succession Act. As observed above, Sec. 5 of Limitation Act is not applicable to the original proceedings under the Indian Succession Act. Thus the contention of the petitioners that there is no specific bar on special enactments cannot be accepted, since Section 29(2) of Limitation Act does not cover the above said provision as there is no limitation provided in the Limitation Act. Therefore, when Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable for application u/s 192 of Indian Succession Act, the question of condonation of delay of 48 days, U/s 5 of Limitation Act does not arise. Thus the present application is barred by limitation, when u/S 5 of Limitation Act is not applicable. Hence I hold that the present application filed beyond six months is not maintainable. Accordingly, the point is held”. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants is unable to convince this Court that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the original proceedings initiated under Section 192 of Indian Succession Act. In that view of the matter, we do not see any flaw in the order impugned in this appeal. 11. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. However, this order does not preclude the appellants-petitioners to work out remedies, if any, available under law. _______________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.02-02-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.999 of 1997 (Judgment of the Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy) Dated: 02-02-2010