Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2775 AP
Judgement Date : 2 August, 2021
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE: SECOND APPEAL No.342 of 2021
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. Date ORDER OFFICE
No. NOTE
1. 02.8.2021 MVR,J
Second Appeal No.342 of 2021
Heard Sri N.Sriram Murthy, learned counsel
for the appellants. Considering the decrees and
judgments of the trial Court as well as the first
appellate Court since the following substantial
questions of law arise for determination in this
second appeal, Admit:
1. When Items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule
which is the ancestral property was admittedly
given towards maintenance to the 1st
appellant/1st defendant under Exs.A1 and A2,
whether the same did not blossom into
absolute right under Section 14(1) of the
Hindu Succession Act?
2. When the provisions contained in the amended
Section 6 (substituted by Act 39 of 2005) of the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confer status of
coparcener on the daughter born before or
after amendment in the same manner as son
with same rights and liabilities as held by the
Hon'ble apex Court in Vineeta Sarma vs.
Rakesh Sharma and when the 1st appellant/
1st defendant succeeds the share of the
deceased daughter, whether the Court below is
justified in holding that the appellants are
entitled to take possession of item No.2 of the
plaint schedule property after the life time of
1st appellant/1st defendant, particularly when
the 2nd respondent is the 2nd wife and
respondents 3 to 5 are her illegitimate children?
3. When P.W.1-plaintiff/deceased respondent No.1 testified that "I got female child through first wife i.e., D1 and the said female child subsequently died" whether the first appellate Court is justified in holding that the appellants are entitled to take possession of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property after the life time of 1st appellant/1st defendant? See 2010 (4) ALD 152 (SC) Para 52.
4. When the purchase and possession of items 1 and 2 of plaint schedule by appellants 2 and 3/ defendants 2 and 3 respectively under Originals of Exs.A.4 and A.5 is not disputed whether the first appellate Court is justified in holding that the appellants are entitled to take possession of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property after the life time of 1st appellant/1st defendant?
5. When admittedly, respondents 3 to 5 are born out of void marriage between respondents 1 and 2, and are not entitled to claim inheritance in ancestral property but is entitled only to claim share in self-acquired properties, if any, whether the first appellate Court is justified in holding that the appellants are entitled to take possession of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property after the life time of 1st respondent/1st defendant, when particularly the 2nd respondent has no semblance of right in the plaint schedule properties?
Issue notice to the respondents to submit arguments in respect of the above substantial questions of law (Arulmighu Nellukadai Mariamman Tirukkoil vs. Tamilarasi (dead) by LRs., Air 2019 SC 3027 followed).
List during the 1st week of November 2021.
________ MVR,J I.A.No.1 of 2021 Heard.
In the circumstances, there shall be interim stay of operation of decree in A.S. No.47 of 2016 dated 07.4.2021 on the file of the Court of learned VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool, until further orders.
________ MVR,J vasu
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!