Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Mudisetty Mohan vs Mudisetty Prameela on 14 August, 2023

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE

                                    &

               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

                    WRIT APPEAL No.790 OF 2023

Mudisetty Mohan, S/o Late Sri Mudisetty Subbaramaiah,
Aged about 39 years, Occ:Business,
R/o.Rayachoty Town, YSR District, A.P.
                                                            ...Appellant

                                     Versus

Mudisetty Prameela, W/o Late Chandra Shekar,
Aged about 37 years, Occupation: Housewife,
R/o Door No.47/146, Bose Nagar,
Behind Sudha Hotel Rayachoty Town and Mandal
YSR Kadapa District, A.P., & 5 others.

                                                        ...Respondents

Dt. 14.08.2023

JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice A.V.Sesha Sai)

Heard and perused the material available on record.

2. Respondent No.6 in W.P.No.10024 of 2019 is the appellant in the

present Writ Appeal, preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

3. This Writ Appeal calls in question the order, dated 11.07.2023,

passed by the learned single Judge in the aforesaid Writ Petition.

HCJ & AVSS,J W.A.No.790 of 2023

4. Respondent No.1 herein instituted the Writ Petition, seeking the

following relief:

"...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of respondent No.2 in disbursement of the death compensation amount of Rs.1,05,20,880/- (Rupees One Crore Five Lakhs Twenty Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty only) deposited in his legal officials account to me and respondent No.5 and the consequential report in Ref.A/98/2019, dated 12.06.2019 submitted by respondent No.4 recommending to advice me to approach the Civil Court for determination of the share amount of the legal representatives of the deceased for getting the compensation amount at the instance of respondent No.6 as arbitrary, illegal, colourable exercise of power and contrary to the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1955 and also the well established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to me under Articles 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct respondent No.2 to disburse the death compensation amount of Rs. 1,05,20,880/- of my husband late Mudisetty Chandra Shekar to me and the respondent No.5 equally by setting aside the report in Ref.A/98/2019, dated 12.06.2019 submitted by respondent No.4 and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case..."

5. The learned single Judge vide the order impugned in

this appeal disposed of the Writ Petition and the

HCJ & AVSS,J W.A.No.790 of 2023

operative portion of the said order, at paragraph Nos.8 &

9, reads as follows:

"8. The report submitted by the Tahsildar does not bind on respondent No.2. 2nd respondent shall consider the entitlement of legal heirs keeping in view the provisions of Hindu Succession Act and then disburse the amount. 2nd respondent shall also consider Section 8 of the Act while disbursing the compensation amount. Regarding the Will and relinquishment deed, 6th respondent has to get the same proved before the competent civil court.

9. In view of the discussion supra, Respondent No.2 being the appropriate authority shall pass appropriate orders and disburse the amount in accordance with law within a period of four (4) weeks from today."

6. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the order

passed by the learned single Judge is erroneous and contrary to law.

In elaboration, it is further contended that, having relinquished her

claim as regards the compensation payable in view of the death of the

husband in favour of her father in law, the writ petitioner cannot

maintain the Writ Petition; that the learned single Judge grossly erred

in deciding the rights of the parties under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India by assuming the jurisdiction of the Civil Court;

that, having left it open for the appellant to approach the Civil Court to

prove his claim based on the relinquishment deed and the Will, the

learned single Judge grossly erred in directing the District Collector to

HCJ & AVSS,J W.A.No.790 of 2023

pass orders, while asking the District Collector to consider Section 8 of

the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

7. On the other hand, Sri V.R.Reddy, learned counsel for the writ

petitioner-respondent No.1 contends that there is absolutely no error

nor there exists any infirmity in the order passed by the learned single

Judge, as such, the same does not warrant any interference of this

Court under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent; that the relinquishment

deed, sought to be pressed into service, is an unregistered document

and inadmissible in evidence and has no evidentiary value and the

said document is brought into existence only for the purpose of

denying legitimate rights of the writ petitioner; that, even as per the

recitals in the relinquishment deed, the property was standing in the

name of the deceased person, as such, execution of relinquishment

deed would be of no consequence; that the Will, said to have been

executed by the father of the deceased, is also of no consequence.

8. In the above back ground, now the issues that emerge for

consideration of this Court are:

"1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the learned single Judge is sustainable and tenable? and

2. Whether the order impugned in this appeal warrants any interference of this Court under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent?"

HCJ & AVSS,J W.A.No.790 of 2023

9. It is not in dispute that, after obtaining divorce from his first

wife, who is the mother of the respondent No.5 in the Writ Petition, the

deceased- Sri Mudisetty Chandrasekhar married the writ petitioner-

respondent No.1 herein. The appellant is no other than the brother of

the said Chandrasekhar. Sri Mudisetty Chandrasekhar, while working

in Kuwait, died on 28.04.2017 and the State of Kuwait granted death

compensation of Rs.1,05,20,880/-(one Crore Five Lakhs Twenty

Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty) and sent the said amount by

way of a Demand Draft to the District Collector, YSR Kadapa District.

The District Collector vide letter, dated 13.07.2018, instructed the

Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa to hold enquiry as regards the

legal heirs and their shares. Eventually, the matter reached the

Tahsildar, Rayachoty, who submitted a report vide Ref.No.A/98/2019,

dated 12.06.2019, and the relevant portion of the said report reads as

under:

10. Assailing the report of the Tahsildar, referred to above, and the

inaction, in disbursing the compensation amount, respondent No.1, by

invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, instituted the present Writ Petition. The learned

single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition in the manner indicated

supra.

HCJ & AVSS,J W.A.No.790 of 2023

11. Entire case of the appellant rests on the unregistered

relinquishment deed, dated 06.06.2017, said to have been executed by

the writ petitioner-respondent No.1 herein and the registered Will,

dated 10.08.2018, executed by the father of the appellant. Copies of

the said relinquishment deed and Will are placed on record by the

appellant. A perusal of the relinquishment deed shows that the

property covered by the same was standing in the name of the

deceased-Sri Mudisetty Chandrasekhar. In this context, it would be

appropriate to refer to Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, which

deals with the devolution of the properties of a Hindu dying intestate.

The said provision of law reads as follows:

"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 deceased"

12. Admittedly, the writ petitioner and the respondent No.5 are

Class-I heirs and they are entitled to equal shares in the property of

the deceased. Even assuming that the execution of the relinquishment

HCJ & AVSS,J W.A.No.790 of 2023

deed is a reality, since the writ petitioner and the respondent No.5

have equal shares in the property of the deceased, such execution and

existence of such document would not have any significance in view of

the above referred provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. The said

document is compulsorily registrable but, admittedly, the same is not

a registered document. Consequences, if any, flowing from such

unregistered relinquishment deed, including the Will, said to have

been executed, would not enure to the benefit of the appellant herein.