*THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.4320 of 2010 % 19.08.2011 Between: # Chunduri Anjana Devi. …Petitioner And $ Bejawada Suryanarayana. …Respondent ! COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER: Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana ^ COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT: ---- < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4320 of 2010 ORDER: Bejawada Chenchuramamma filed O.S.No.61 of 1991 in the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole against her husband, the respondent herein, claiming maintenance. It appears that the trial Court awarded maintenance and not satisfied with that, she filed A.S.No.126 of 1994 in the Court of District Judge, Ongole. The amount of maintenance was enhanced. Chenchuramamma filed E.P.No.515 of 2000 for execution of the decree. She sought for arrest of the respondent. During the pendency of the E.P., Chenchuramamma died. The petitioner herein filed E.A.No.736 of 2006 under Order 22 Rule 10 C.P.C. with a prayer to add her as legal representative of Chenchuramamma. She pleaded that during her lifetime, Chenchuramamma executed a will on 29.08.2003 bequeathing all her movable and immovable properties to the petitioner and in that view of the matter, she is entitled to come on record. The application was opposed by the respondent. Through its order, dated 28.06.2010, the executing Court dismissed the E.A. Hence, this revision. Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the executing Court was not justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner. He contends that the observation made by the executing Court that there is no clear recital in the will enabling the petitioner to recover the past maintenance is not only contrary to facts, but is also opposed to Section 74 and other relevant provisions of the Indian Succession Act (for short ‘the Act’). The E.P. was filed by Chenchuramamma against her husband, to recover the arrears of past, as well as future maintenance. Even before any substantial progress took place in the E.P., she died. The petitioner intended to come on record and to continue the proceedings by filing the application under Order 22 Rule 10 C.P.C. It is no doubt true that the legatee of a deceased party to the proceedings can come on record and pursue the proceedings. Where however the bequest is not clear and a doubt arises as to the purport thereof, the execution proceedings are not the proper avenue for adjudication of the same. This issue becomes more acute, when the legatee is not a lineal descendant or an immediate successor. Further, much would depend upon the recitals in the will. In this case, the will relied upon by the petitioner is brief, in its content. The recital is only to the effect that the testatrix had bequeathed all her properties in favour of the petitioner. There is no mention of any movable and immovable properties. It is only in the preamble that she made a mention to the fact that she instituted proceedings against her husband to recover the maintenance. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to Section 74 of the Act, which is to the effect that it is not necessary that any technical words or terms of art be used in the will. Other provisions are to the effect that where no specific reference is made to any items, bequest can be treated of the entire property left by the testator. The nature of enquiry that is to be undertaken by a Court into the validity or otherwise of a will in an application filed under Order 22 Rule 10 C.P.C. would be very limited. Such enquiry is required to be made only to enable the party to continue the proceedings to their logical end. No final pronouncement can be made about the rights flow from the will. The reason is that other parties effected by the will would not be before the Court and it may not be possible for the Court to make a final pronouncement upon the proof or legality of the will. The persons claiming through will can institute separate proceedings, to seek declaration of their rights. There would be an occasion for the persons, who are otherwise entitled to succeed to the properties left by the testator, to contest the proceedings. Since the petitioner claims the rights not only vis-à-vis the subject matter of the E.P. but also the entire movable and immovable properties left by late Chenchuramamma, it is better that the petitioner institutes separate proceedings, to seek declaration of her rights under the will. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to file a separate suit, to claim the benefits under the will, duly impleading the legal heirs or successors of the deceased. If such a suit is instituted, she can also treat the claim against the respondent herein in the E.P. as one of the items. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 19.08.2011 Note: L.R.Copy to be marked. (B/o) JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4320 of 2010 Date: 19.08.2011 JSU