Chiluvuri/Kursam Radha Kumari vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2023 Latest Caselaw 2533 AP

          HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI

                   MAIN CASE No.W.P.No.10946 of 2023
                                PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.                                                                        Office
No      DATE                             ORDER                             Note
5     27.04.2023   RRR, J
                          The petitioners have approached this Court
                   with the contention that they are the wife and
                   children of late Sri K.Nageswara Rao and that his
                   pensionary and death benefits are being released
                   to the 4th respondent, who is the mother of late Sri

K.Nageswara Rao on the ground that she has been nominated as the nominee to receive the said benefits.

The petitioners contend that the 4th respondent is at best a nominee who can receive the funds for the benefit of the petitioners also and the entire amount cannot be released to her. The petitioners contend that they had moved the 2nd respondent for grant of a succession certificate on the ground that he would be the agent to the Governor, who would have jurisdiction to grant such a succession certificate under the Indian Succession Act, 1925. This application has been rejected by the 2nd respondent on the ground that he does not have jurisdiction to take up the matter.

The law on the question of whether the agent to the Governor would have jurisdiction to grant succession certificates in the agency area, is not clear in view of the various judgments of this

Court on the question of the jurisdiction of the agent to the Governor under various enactments.

These issues would have to be gone into before any conclusion can be drawn as to whether the 2nd respondent would have jurisdiction to issue succession certificates under the Succession Act, 1925.

In the meanwhile, the petitioners apprehend that all the benefits payable to the family members of late Sri K.Nageswara Rao would be disbursed to the 4th respondent which would cause immense hardship to the petitioners as they would not be able to recover the money from the 4th respondent.

It is not disputed that the 4th respondent as the mother of late Sri K.Nageswara Rao would be entitled to 1/4th share of the said benefits.

Accordingly, with a view to protect the interests of the petitioners as well as that of the 4 th respondent, it would be appropriate to direct the 3rd respondent, not to release any of the benefits accruing to late Sri K.Nageswara Rao and his legal heirs to the 4th respondent, except to the extent of 1/4th share of the said benefits, pending further orders.

This order would be applicable if the benefits have not been released already.

Post on 08.05.2023 in 'motion list'.

In the meanwhile, learned counsel for the petitioners to take personal notice to respondent

No.4 by RPAD and file proof of service by the next date of hearing.

_________ RRR, J Note:

Issue CC today.

B/o RJS