THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.418 of 2010 Dt:19-04-2010 Between : Chowtapalli Pratap Reddy ...petitioner And Dasari Pullamma .. Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P. Veera Reddy, Counsel for respondent : Sri K. Sitaram < GIST >HEAD NOTE: ? CASES REFERRED : THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.418 of 2010 ORDER: One Sri S. Pulla Reddy was employed in M/s Ramakrishna Chemicals, in Kadapa District. Ankalamma was his wife. Pulla Reddy died on 02-11-2000. Since the couple had no children, the death/retirement benefits to the tune of about Rs.1.5 lakhs, have devolved upon his wife, Ankalamma. Shortly thereafter, Ankalamma died on 22-01-2001. The petitioner is the brother of Ankalamma. The respondent, the sister of Pulla Reddy, filed succession O.P.No.6 of 2002 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, claiming the benefits, that have passed on from Pulla Reddy to Ankalamma, and were in the form of deposits in the Bank, etc. The petitioner alone was made as respondent in the O.P. He contested the O.P. by raising several grounds. Through its order dated 24-01-2005, the trial Court allowed the O.P., and held that the respondent is entitled to receive the amounts, that were left by Ankalamma. The petitioner filed A.S.No.38 of 2005 in the Court of Principal District Judge, Kadapa. The appeal was dismissed on 30-09-2009. Hence, this revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, on the death of Pulla Reddy, Ankalamma became the sole successor for his properties, and she held the movable and immovable properties with absolute rights. He contends that, not only the petitioner is the proximate relation and successor of Ankalamma, but also a Will was executed by her in favour of the petitioner herein. He submits that the trial Court and lower Appellate Court have disbelieved the Will, though it was proved beyond any doubt. Sri K. Sitaram, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the succession to the property left by Ankalamma is clearly governed by Section 15 (1)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’), and the Courts below have applied the same. He contends that the Will was brought into existence at a subsequent stage, and it is evident from the fact that no mention of it is made in the counter filed by the petitioner herein in the O.P. The relationship of the parties is not in dispute. While the petitioner is the brother of Ankalamma, respondent is the sister of Pulla Reddy. On the death of Pulla Reddy, the property devolved upon his wife, Ankalamma. Soon after the death of Ankalamma, the respondent filed the O.P., claiming succession to the amount left by her. The petitioner herein figured as the only respondent in the O.P. He did not dispute the relationship, nor he pleaded any Will in his favour. An attempt was made to create suspicion as to the circumstances, under which Ankalamma died and to accuse the respondent, of causing her death. The trial Court framed only one point for its consideration, viz., whether the petitioner, i.e. the respondent herein is entitled to succession certificate, as prayed for? On behalf of the respondent herein, PWs 1 and 2 were examined, and she filed Exs.A-1 to A-11. On behalf of the petitioner, RWs 1 to 3 were examined and a Will, dated 11-12-2000, said to have been executed by Ankalamma, was filed as Ex.B-1. Extensive reference was made to the disputes, as regards sharing of the property, left by Pulla Reddy. The trial Court allowed the O.P, and the appeal filed against it was dismissed. The subject-matter of the O.P., is succession to the movable property in the form of cash, left by Ankalamma. If she died intestate, the succession to her property is governed by Section 15 of the Act. The mode of succession provided under this provision is as under: “Sec.15. General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus— (1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16,-- (a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband; (b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband; (c) thirdly, upon the mother and father; (d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and (e) lastly, upon ;the heirs of the mother. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),-- (a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre- deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father; and (b) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband”. Admittedly, Ankalamma did not have any children. The next in the list are the successors of her husband. Being the sister of Pulla Reddy, the respondent fitted into that. Therefore, the respondent was entitled to succeed to the property left by Ankalamma, unless the latter had executed any Will. The petitioner made a feeble attempt at a subsequent stage of the O.P., to plead that Ex.B-1 was executed by Ankalamma. RW-2 is said to be the scribe of the Will. His evidence was found to be suspicious. RW-3 claimed to be an attestor. However, he did not state that Ankalamma executed the Will in his presence. An indication was given by him to the effect that he signed the Will, after it was executed. The alleged Will did not figure in the counter filed in the O.P., nor was it filed before any authority. The trial Court and the lower Appellate Court have assigned cogent reasons as to how Ex.B-1 cannot be relied upon. Several suspicious circumstances remained unexplained. Once Ex.B-1 is disbelieved, the only consequence is that the succession has to take place, as provided for under section 15 of the Act. Therefore, there are no merits in the C.R.P., and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.19-04-2010. Note: Mark L.R copies. (B/O) KO