Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Alluri Satyavathi And 2 Others vs Alluri Venkata Krishnam Raju An Another on 26 September, 2024
APHC010244382009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3460]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1081/2009
Between:
Alluri Satyavathi & 2 Others ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
Alluri Venkata Krishnam Raju & Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. A CHANDRAIH NAIDU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. SREEMANNARAYANA VATTIKUTI
2. G R SUDHAKAR
The Court made the following:
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
C.M.A.NO.1081 of 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 299
of Indian Succession Act, 1925 questioning the Order and Decree dated
24.04.2009 made in O.P.No.307 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the
Principal District Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry.
2. The appellants are the petitioners. O.P.No.307 of 2004 was filed
under Section 317 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to grant probate in
respect of the Will dated 15.04.1991 and for such other reliefs.
The petitioner No.1 is the wife of late Alluri Narasimha Raju and the
mother of Respondent No.1. The Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the
daughters of Respondent No.1 and grand-daughters of Petitioner No.1
and late Alluri Narasimha Raju.
3. The scheduled properties were owned by late Alluri Narasimha
Raju and he had executed a Will dated 15.04.1991 in sound and
disposing state of mind at his residence at Kovvur bequeathing life
interest in the 'A' and 'B' schedule lands and houses therein in favour of
Respondent No.1 and absolute remainder rights in favour of petitioner
Nos.2 and 3. The 'C' schedule property i.e. a factory by name Srinivasa
Enterprises at Bandapuram, West Godavari District was bequeathed to
the Respondent No.1 with absolute rights along with some cash and
shares. The Respondent No.1 sold away 'C' schedule property and was
trying to sell away the lands covered under the Will dated 15.04.1991 for
his personal benefit. The petitioner No.1 as guardian of the minor
Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 (at that point of time) filed the O.P for grant of
probate of the Will dated 15.04.1991 under Section 214 of the Indian
Succession Act.
4. As expectedly, in cases of this nature, the Respondent No.1
remained ex parte in accordance with the script. The Respondent No.2
i.e. A.P. State Financial Corporation filed counter opposing the claim and
that the Will was a fabricated document, which was brought into existence
to defeat the claims by the Respondent No.2-Corporation. It was also
pleaded that in O.S.No.7 of 2001 filed before the II Additional District
Court, Rajahmundry, the petitioners had contended that late Alluri
Narasimha Raju died intestate.
5. The Respondent No.2-Corporation further pleaded that the
Petitioner No.1 had earlier made a representation to the Corporation that
her husband had executed a Will on 14.11.1991 where under 'B'
schedule property was bequeathed to the Respondent No.1. On the basis
of the Will dated 14.11.1991, the Respondent No.2 advanced huge
amounts to the Respondent No.1 as loan on the mortgage of 'B' schedule
property. As there was default in payment of the loan amounts, the
Respondent No.2-Corporation had conducted auction of the 'B' schedule
property in exercise of powers under Section 29 of the State Financial
Corporations Act, 1951 and one R. Seshagiri Rao was declared as the
auction purchaser and was inducted into the property on 10.08.2005. It is
the case of the Respondent No.2-Corporation that the entire proceedings
is farcical and devoid of merits.
6. On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws 1 to 4 were examined and
Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the Respondent No.2-
Corporation, R.Ws 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.20 were
marked in evidence.
7. The trial Court framed the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether the Will dated 15.04.1991 claimed by the petitioners is true,
valid and binding upon all those concerned and therefore the mortgage
of petition B schedule property in favour of the 2nd respondent in respect
of the loan said to be given to M/s Satya Krishna Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.,
for which the 1st respondent happened to be the Managing Director is
maintainable or not?
2. Whether the Will dt.14-11-1991 is true, valid and binding upon the
parties concerned?
3. Whether this Court has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain this
petition?
4. Whether the petitioners are entitled to grant of probate as
prayed for?
8. After considering the respective pleadings, evidence and
contentions, the trial Court dismissed the claim. Hence, the present
C.M.A is filed.
9. Heard Sri A.Chandraiah Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and Sri G.R. Sudhakar, learned Standing Counsel for the
respondent-State Financial Corporation.
10. The issue that falls for consideration in this appeal is as follows:-
Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of probate under
Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925?
11. The petitioners had filed O.S.No.7 of 2001 on the file of the
II Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry. The plaint thereof was marked
as Ex.B.1. In the said suit, it was pleaded that at Para 4 thereof late Alluri
Narasimha Raju died intestate on 18.11.1991 leaving behind substantial
properties. The suit was filed for partition of the suit schedule properties.
The Respondent No.2 had filed their detailed written statement (Ex.B.19),
wherein a specific plea was taken that petitioner No.1 and respondent
No.1 had submitted an affidavit dated 22.2.1996 stating that Late
Narasimha raju executed a Will dated 14.11.1991 bequeathing properties
in favour of Respondent No.1. Subsequent to the institution of the suit,
a Memo was filed on 25.11.2004 not pressing the suit. Accordingly, the
suit was dismissed as not pressed on 04.02.2005. No liberty was granted
for initiation of any other proceedings.
12. Thereafter, the petitioners filed the present O.P. seeking probate
and the Respondent No.2 was deliberately not shown as party
respondent. An ex-parte decree was obtained. Then, the Respondent
No.2 filed I.A.No.625 of 2005 to set-aside the grant of probate as he is an
interested party. The I.A was allowed after contest and the same was
confirmed in C.M.A.No.840 of 2006 by this Court. Thereafter, the
Respondent No.2 was impleaded 25.9.2007 in I.A.No.960 of 2007.
The petitioners were desperate to see to it that Respondent No.2 is kept
out of the present proceedings.
13. In the pleadings of the petitioners, there is no mention of the
withdrawal of the suit and it is apparent that the same was intentionally
suppressed. The petitioner No.1, who was examined as P.W.1 in her
chief examination does not refer to the Will dated 14.11.1991. However,
in the cross examination, P.W.1 stated that she gave a Will dated
14.11.1991 executed by her husband and that she does not know
whether the Respondent No.1 had given the Will to the Respondent No.2-
Corporation.
14. In the deposition, the PW.1 stated that the Will dated 15.4.1991
was found in the shelf of Respondent No.1 when Petitioner No.1 was
arranging the same sometime in 2005. It was then, the petitioner No.1
gave instructions to her counsel to withdraw O.S.No.7 of 2001. However,
as mentioned supra, no such details were mentioned in the memo
seeking for withdrawal of the suit. It is also necessary to note that the
Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were unborn as on 15.04.1991. It appears that
they were born sometime in the years 1995 and 1999 going by the age
given in the cause title.
15. The Ex.B.8 is the document dated 16.01.1996 where under the 'B'
schedule property was mortgaged in favour of the Respondent No.2-
Corporation by depositing title deeds. The said Ex.B.8 also refers to the
fact that an amount of Rs.42,00,000/- was advanced as loan to the
Respondent No.1. The Ex.B.20 is the notarized affidavit dated 22.08.1996
executed by the Petitioner No.1, which was the basis for sanctioning of
loan to Respondent No.1 by Respondent No.2. In the notarized affidavit,
the Petitioner No.1 had stated that on 14.11.1991 late Alluri Narasimha
Raju had executed a Will bequeathing movable and immovable properties
in favour of the Respondent No.1 herein. The Petitioner No.1 had
declared that the Will dated 14.11.1991 executed by late Alluri Narasimha
Raju during his lifetime is the last and final Will and no other Will was
executed by him than the Will dated 14.11.1991.
16. The respondent No.2 examined one Baladari Surya Rao as R.W.2
in support of Ex.B.20 notarized affidavit. The RW.2 is an Advocate and
the notary, who had attested Ex.B.20. In his chief examination, he had
stated that he was practicing as an Advocate in Kovvur town since 1953
and was notary for over 25 years. The R.W.2 categorically stated that he
knows Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 and that the Ex.B.20 was
signed in his presence and was attested by him. Nothing is elicited in the
cross examination to make his deposition doubtful. Even otherwise, there
is no reason for R.W.2 to speak falsehood.
17. In the light of the categorical statement of RW.2 and in the absence
of any explanation whatsoever by P.W.1 with regard to Will dated
14.11.1991 and Ex.B.20 affidavit, the claim for probate was rightly
rejected by the trial Court. The issue is accordingly answered.
18. The whole approach of the Petitioner No.1 and the Respondent
No.1 is to avoid the payment of the amounts received from the
Respondent No.2-Corporation and the farcical litigation is apparently
created to delay and defeat the claim of the Respondent No.2-
Corporation and to trouble the auction purchaser. The execution of the
notarized Affidavit by the Petitioner No.1 on 22.08.1996 declaring that the
Will dated 14.11.1991 as the last and final Will and thereafter enabling the
Respondent No.1 to receive the loan amount of Rs.42,00,000/- from the
Respondent No.2-Corporation and then taking plea in the suit that late
Alluri Narasimha Raju had died intestate and thereafter seeking for a
probate in the present O.P on the basis of the Will dated 15.04.1991
reflects a blatantly unfair litigation, which is a growing trend.
19. Therefore, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is devoid of merit and is
dismissed with costs throughout.
As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
Date: 26.09.2024
IS
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
C.M.A.NO.1081 of 2009
Date: 26.09.2024
IS
