THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.12284 of 2009 ORDER: Present writ petition has been instituted by two brothers of a deceased Lecturer of V.S.R. & N.V.R. College, Tenali, Guntur District. They challenged the legality and validity of an order passed on 14-03-2009 by the Tahsildar, Bapatla Mandal, Bapatla, Guntur District, recognizing the 4th respondent – the widow of their deceased brother as his legal representative. The facts, which are not in dispute are these: One Sri P. Venkateswara Rao was working as a Lecturer in Political Science at V.S.R. & N.V.R. College, Tenali, Guntur District. He was married to the 4th respondent on 07-12-1985. As they could not pull their matrimonial home in a uniform direction, the deceased brother of the writ petitioners has instituted legal proceedings on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge’s Court, Tenali, under Sections 13 (1)(a) and (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking annulment of his marriage with the 4th respondent. Aseliquid had it, he died died on 03-12-1996, even before the original petition could be decided. Thus, the relationship of the 4th respondent with the deceased brother of the writ petitioners has not been annulled by the date of death. The status of the 4th respondent, therefore, continues and remains to be that of a widow of Sri P. Venkateswara Rao – deceased brother of the writ petitioners. It appears that the mother of the writ petitioners – Smt. P. Govindamma filed a civil suit in O.S.No.51 of 1997 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Tenali, seeking declaration of her rights in the estate of her deceased son Sri P. Venkateswara Rao. The 4th respondent – the widow of the deceased son of Smt. P. Govindamma, the Life Insurance Corporation of India, the Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited, Central Bank of India and the Employees Cooperative Credit Society of the College are impleaded as some of the defendants to the said Suit. The said Suit was dismissed on 29-07- 2004. An Appeal was preferred against the said Judgment in A.S.No.207 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Judge’s Court, Guntur, which is still pending. In the interregnum Smt. P. Govindamma died and consequently, the three petitioners herein came on record of the said Appeal as her legal representatives. Because of the persistent objections in the form of legal notices, representations and other litigations, the terminal benefits payable to the deceased Sri P. Venkateswara Rao have not been settled so far. The 4th respondent widow has been moving from pillar to post for securing some relief or the other in the form of recognition as legal representative of the deceased Sri P. Venkateswara Rao so as to stake a claim for securing the benefits payable upon the death of her husband Sri P. Venkateswara Rao. It is noteworthy that Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, by which both the writ petitioners herein and their deceased brother and the 4th respondent are governed, lays down the general rules of succession in the case of males: “8. General rules of succession in the case of males:- The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter,- (a) firstly, upon the heirs being the relatives specified in Class I of the Schedule ; (b) secondly, if there is no heir of Class I, then upon the heirs being the relatives specified in Class II of the Schedule ; (c) thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the two classes, then upon the agnates of the deceased ; and (d) lastly, if there is no agnate, then upon the cognates of the deceases.” The Schedule to the Act has classified Class I and Class II heirs to a deceased male. The widow of a deceased male and his mother are both recognized as Class I heirs. Therefore, it could hardly be doubted that the 4th respondent by the very admission of the writ petitioners that she is married to the deceased Sri P. Venkateswara Rao on 07-12-1985 in accordance with the Hindu customs and xxxxx is entitled to stake a claim and receive the terminal benefits. It may be that the mother of the deceased Sri P. Venkateswara Rao also being a Class I heir is entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased Sri P. Venkateswara Rao. That would a matter, which would be appropriately be settled by the Appellate Court while dealing with A.S.No.xxxxxxx. Pendency of the said litigation need not and should not come in the way of a legitimate Class I heir of the deceased male xxx from receiving the terminal benefits. Unfortunately, in this case Sri P. Venkateswara Rao has died on 03-12-1996, nearly 13 years period has elapsed eversince. Because of the xxxx and interminable litigation indulged in, the 4th respondent has been left in the lurch and fend for herself. In these hard times, it is nearly impossible for people without adequate financial support to survive and succeed. I, therefore, do not consider that this is a fit case for admission. Ends of justice would be better served by directing the respondents 2 and 3 to take all possible steps as expeditiously as possible to see to it that all the terminal benefits payable upon the death of Sri P. Venkateswara Rao are settled immediately to the 4th respondent. At the same time, the 4th respondent shall not appropriate or otherwise deal with or create any liability or hindrance in any manner upon 50 % of the quantum of the benefits received by her, other than family pension, if she is entitled to receive. The 4th respondent will hold the entire money as a trustee of the estate of her deceased husband. The 4th respondent would only be free and at liberty to deal with 50 % of thes amount in her own right and shall confine the balance 50 % of the amounts received by her to a interest boring fixed deposit with any of the nationalized banks and shall intimate such details to the Appellate Court, where A.S.No.xxxxxxxxxxxx is pending. It shall be her duty to preserve the funds till such time the Appellate Court decides the issue one way or the other. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. -------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J mrk 24th June 2009