HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN C.M.A.No.280 OF 2008 BETWEEN: Ankala Aruna @ Aruna Kumari and others …APPELLANTS. AND Gochipata Lurdhamma and others. …RESPONDENTS. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.280 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short the Act) is directed against order passed in S.O.P.No.139 of 2007 dated 19-02-2008 on the file of the Court of the VIII Addl. District Judge (FTC) Guntur. 2. The appellants are the respondents 4, 5 and 6 whereas the respondents are the petitioner and respondents 1, 2, 3 & 7 in the petition. For convenience sake, I refer the parties as arrayed in the petition. 3. The Succession O.P is filed under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act to declare that the petitioner is the leally wedded wife of G.Peda Nageswara Rao and she is entitled for succession certificate in respect of the corresponding family pension and other death benefits of the said person, who worked as postman and took voluntary retirement as a result of which the question of his death benefits arose. 4. The 3rd respondent and 7th respondent contested the matter whereas the remaining respondents remained ex parte. On behalf of the petitioner, he herself got examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.4 which happened to be relevant marriage extract issued by Marriage Recorder, AELC, Guntur; order passed in M.C.No.14 of 1994 on the file of VII Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Guntur; office copy of legal notice dated 27-07-2006 got issued by the petitioner; and reply got issued by counsel of the respondents 1 to 3 whereas on behalf of the respondents 3 and 7 nobody was examined and no documents were marked. 5. On the basis of the material available, it is observed by the lower Court that the deceased nominated the 1st respondent as his wife, the third respondent did not cross examine P.W.1 and according to the 7th respondent, the petitioner was not the legally wedded wife of the deceased and the evidence of the petitioner remained unchallenged and thus her claim was established. 7. Further I.A.No.179 of 2008 and I.A.No.200 of 2008 were filed on behalf of the appellants/respondents 4,5 and 6 to reopen the case and set aside ex parte orders dated 12-09-2007 passed against them by the lower Court. 8. It is significant to note that even according to the petitioner, the deceased nominated the 1st respondent in respect of his retirement benefits and further according to the 7th respondent, the petitioner was not the legally wedded wife of the deceased, but just basing upon the evidence of the petitioner as PW-1, the lower Court upheld the claim of the petitioner without discussing about the other aspects of the case when it is the claim of the petitioner herself that the 1st respondent was nominated by the deceased in respect of his retirement benefits and further it is claimed by the 7th respondent that the petitioner was not the legally wedded wife of the deceased, all those relevant factors should have been examined for the purpose of ascertaining whether the petitioner happened to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased or the 1st respondent happened to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased for the purpose on hand. 9. Therefore, the order passed by the lower court is not tenable, further the matter should be remanded to the lower Court with a direction to give opportunity to the parties concerned to adduce necessary evidence and then to dispose of the matter in the light of the observation made above. 10. In the result, the order passed by the lower Court is set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower Court in order to dispose of the matter as per the observations made above. Accordingly, appeal is disposed of. No costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Date: 11-04-2011 INL