Senior Civil Judge vs Unknown
2022 Latest Caselaw 2382 AP

      HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI
 MAIN CASE No: S.A.NO.218 OF 2020
                                  PROCEEDINGS SHEET
Sl.                                                                                              OFFICE
                                                                                                  NOTE
No.
       DATE                                         ORDER
9.    05.05.2022   KSR,J

                                            S.A.NO.218 OF 2020

                      Defendant No.4 in O.S.No.36 of 2011 on the file of the Court of

                   Senior Civil Judge, Repelle, Guntur District is the appellant herein. The

                   1st respondent herein filed the above suit seeking the relief of partition

against the appellant and respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein. Pending suit,

2nd respondent i..e, 1st defendant died on 01-06-2012. As the legal

representatives were already on record, the suit was proceeded with.

Defendant Nos.3 and 4 have contested the suit by filing a written

statement.

The appellant pleaded that she and 3rd defendant got the properties

under Exs.B-2 and B-3 registered Wills. After an elaborate trial, the trial

court dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 27-01-2017.

Aggrieved by the same, 1st respondent herein filed Appeal Suit viz.,

A.S.No.29 of 2007 before the XI Additional District Judge, Tenali. The

learned XI Additional District Judge allowed the Appeal by judgment

dated 06-03-2020 on the ground that Exs.B-2 and B-3 Wills have not

been proved by the appellant herein in accordance with Section.63(c) of

the Hindu Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The contention of the appellant is that sofar as Exs.B-2 and B-3 are

concerned, they were admitted by the plaintiff. If that is so, there is no

need to prove the same in accordance with the above provisions of law.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the following

substantial questions of law arises for consideration in this Second

Appeal.

(1) Whether the 1st respondent having admitted that she was beneficiary under Ex.B-1 and also having admitted execution of Exs.B-2,3 and B-4 is not stopped from maintaining the present suit for partial partition excluding properties covered by Ex.B-1 especially when Exs.B-1 to B-4 were acted upon by the respective Sl. OFFICE NOTE No.

      DATE                                   ORDER
                    parties; and

(2) Whether Ex.B-2 and B-3 need to be proved in accordance with Section 63(c) of Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, despite the specific admission by the 1st respondent as per the ratio laid down in AIR 1994 A.P 284(D.B) as admitted facts need not be proved.

Hence, ADMIT.

Notice.

_________________

K.SURESH REDDY,J

I.A.NO.1 OF 2020

As this court had already passed interim orders in S.A.No.310

of 2020 on 05-01-2021, no further orders are required to be

passed in this application. Hence, this application is closed.

                                                                _________________

                                                                K.SURESH REDDY,J

             TSNR
 Sl.                  OFFICE
                      NOTE
No.
      DATE   ORDER