THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.969 of 2005 JUDGMENT: One Mr.Gutha Ajay Kumar died on 16.07.1984. The 1st respondent herein, by name Krishna Bai, filed O.P.No.40 of 1987 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Guntur for grant of succession certificate. She pleaded that Ajay Kumar died issueless and that he has no other legal heirs and she alone is the immediate legal heir. The O.P. was allowed on 29.01.1988 and succession certificate was issued. The appellant herein filed O.P.No.38 of 1988 in the same Court for cancellation of the succession certificate issued in O.P.No.40 of 1987. It was her case that she is the legally wedded wife of Ajay Kumar and that being the class-I heir, she alone is entitled to be issued the succession certificate. Alternatively, she pleaded that Ajay Kumar executed a will on 18.06.1984 marked as Ex.A.1 and that she is entitled to succeed to his estate. The O.P. was contested by the 1st respondent. She denied the status of the appellant as the wife of Ajay Kumar. The Will was also disputed. Through judgment, dated 18.03.1996, the trial Court dismissed the O.P. Thereupon, the appellant filed A.S.No.51 of 1996 in the Court of III Additional District Judge, Guntur. The appeal was dismissed on 24.08.2000. Hence, this second appeal. Heard Sri V.L.N.G.K.Murthy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K.Lakshmi Narasimha, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. Before the trial Court, on behalf of the appellant, P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Ex.A.1, the will, dated 18.06.1994 was filed. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.21 were filed. There is a serious doubt as to the very maintainability of the O.P. filed by the appellant. In case, she felt aggrieved by the decree passed or succession certificate issued in O.P.No.40 of 1987, she ought to have preferred an appeal by obtaining leave from the competent Court. Instead, she has filed an O.P. for cancellation of the succession certificate granted in another O.P. Such a course is not permissible in law. On merits also, the appellant failed to prove that she was wedded to late Ajay Kumar. Both the Courts below recorded concurrent findings in this regard. Though she claimed rights under Ex.A.1, she failed to prove it as required under law. One of the attestor, no doubt was examined in chief. However, he was not available for cross-examination. The trial Court has eschewed his examination in chief and the result was that Ex.A.1 was not proved. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal. Therefore, the Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 30.11.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.969 of 2005 Date: 30.11.2011 JSU