THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
APPEAL SUIT No.986 of 2004
AND
CROSS OBJECTIONS (I.A.No.2 of 2004)
JUDGMENT:
Assailing the judgment and decree dated 28.02.1992 in O.S.No.27 of 1984 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Ramachandrapuram, the sole plaintiff filed the above appeal suit.
2. Initially, plaintiff filed O.P.No.17 of 1983 as informa pauperis for declaration of title in respect of A schedule property and to deliver the same after evicting the 1st defendant and for damages for use and occupation and to direct the 2nd defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.6,150/- towards arrears of rental due on the B schedule property. Vide judgment and decree dated 28.02.1992, suit O.S.No.27 of 1984 was decreed declaring the plaintiff is the owner of A schedule property and directing the 1st defendant to vacate the house within one month i.e. on or before 28.03.1992. The decree further indicates that plaintiff is entitled to file an application for determination of future profits in respect of B schedule property. In respect of other claims, suit was dismissed.
3. Against the said judgment and decree, plaintiff filed appeal A.S.No.128 of 1992 and the respondents in the appeal (defendants) filed Cross Objections in A.S.No.128 of 1992. The lower appellate Court by order dated 08.11.1999 returned 2 appeal as well as the cross objections to present the same before the proper Court and two months' time was granted. Pursuant to the same, the sole appellant filed the above appeal A.S.No.984 of 2004 and the 1st respondent herein filed Cross Objections in A.S.No.984 of 2004.
4. Pending the appeal, sole appellant died on 07.04.2014. ASMP No.1228 of 2017 was filed by one P.Veera Raghava Reddy to bring him as legal representative of deceased sole appellant. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was pleaded that the deceased appellant executed a registered Will dated 15.03.2007. In view of dispute with regard to genuineness of the said Will, this Court by order dated 04.12.2017 directed the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram to conduct enquiry and submit report. Pursuant to the same, learned Senior Civil Judge, Ramachadrapuram conducted enquiry, in which P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-3 were marked on behalf of petitioner. On behalf of respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked. However, the documents were marked subject to proof and relevancy.
5. Learned Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram submitted his report holding that the proposed legal representative failed to prove the Will dated 15.03.2007 marked as Ex.A-1, during the course of enquiry. Pursuant to submitting the said report before this Court, no representation was made on behalf of proposed party.
3
6. In view of the same, this Court directed the learned counsel for 1st respondent to take out personal notice to proposed 2nd appellant and also to counsel for appellant in the lower Court. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent has filed proof of service vide USR No.23274 of 2022 dated 24.05.2022. The postal track report attached to the proof of service, shows that notice was served on proposed appellant on 22.04.2022.
7. No objections were filed by the proposed appellant against the report of learned Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram. As per the said report referred supra, the Will said to have been relied on by the proposed appellant, is not proved. Since the sole appellant died and no legal representatives were brought on record, the appeal stands abated.
8. Accordingly, the appeal suit is dismissed as abated. The Cross Objections filed by 1st respondent also stands dismissed as abated. No costs.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
_________________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J 26th July, 2022 PVD