M Parvathi, Khammam Dist vs M Vasantha, Bhadradri Dist 3 ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 72 Tel

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

                     C.R.P.No.1525 OF 2017
ORDER:

This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India is directed against the judgment dated

27.09.2016 in O.S.No.346 of 2016, on the file of the Sub-

Divisional Magistrate and Special Assistant Agent to Government,

Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam, wherein the said suit filed by the

petitioner/ plaintiff No.4 and respondents herein/plaintiffs 1 to 3

for declaration of legal heirs of the deceased late Meesala Bhanu

Prakash, was decreed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel

for the respondents. Perused the record.

3. The petitioner herein is plaintiff No.4 and respondent Nos.1

to 3 herein are plaintiff Nos.1 to 3. They filed the suit filed for

declaration of legal heirs of the deceased late Meesala Bhanu

Prakash, who died on 12.07.2016. The first respondent is wife,

respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein are minor children and petitioner

herein is the mother of the deceased late Meesala Bhanu Prakash.

The first respondent represented all of them and filed the suit.

The said suit was decreed by judgment dated 27.09.2016 declaring

the petitioner herein and respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein as Class-I

legal heirs of the deceased. Assailing the said judgment and

decree, the petitioner, who is mother of the deceased, filed the

present revision.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first

respondent played fraud on the court by signing in the plaint on

behalf of the petitioner herein by furnishing the false address

though she was not residing in the said address. The court below,

without verifying the signatures on the plaint, mechanically passed

the impugned decree and judgment and prays to set aside the same.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3

submits that the first respondent/first plaintiff has not committed

any fraud on the court and she has furnished the address of

petitioner/plaintiff No.4 as the petitioner was residing with them

during the life time of her son. The first respondent, without any

ill-motive, signed on her behalf and on behalf her children as well

as the petitioner herein and no false information was pleaded

before the court and to obtain Class-I legal heir certificate from the

court, they filed the suit for declaration to declare the petitioner and

respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein as Class-I legal heirs of the deceased.

The court below by the impugned judgment has rightly allowed the

suit and declared them as Class-I legal heirs of the deceased and

the same does not suffer from any infirmity and prays to dismiss

the revision.

6. The only question that arises for consideration is - whether

the respondents have committed any fraud and the court below

committed any error without noticing the fraud and passed the

impugned judgment?

7. A perusal of the material on record would disclose that the

husband of the first respondent viz., Meesala Bhanu Prakash died

on 12.07.2016 while in service at their house in Bhadrachalam

town due to ill-health.

8. It is evident that the first respondent signed the plaint on

behalf of her children i.e., respondent Nos.2 and 3 and also on

behalf of the petitioner herein in the verification column of the

plaint stating that the information furnished by her is correct to the

best of their knowledge. In the plaint pleadings, the petitioner has

not suppressed any fact and has categorically stated that the

petitioner and respondents are Class-I legal heirs of the deceased

Meesala Bhanu Prakash. The entire plaint pleadings are attested by

the first respondent on behalf of others in the verification column

of the plaint. Except that, there is no other allegation on the plea of

fraud raised by the revision petitioners. I do not find any force in

the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the first

respondent committed fraud. It is appears that the present revision

is filed only to create obstacles to the respondents not to get the

death benefits of the deceased, who is husband of the first

respondent and son of the petitioner. The revision petition, on the

face of it, is not tenable and under the guise of the revision petition,

it appears that there is delay in receiving the death benefits of the

deceased by the respondents as well as the petitioner.

9. Moreover, there is no basis to take such a plea that fraud has

been committed by the first respondent and nothing has been done

by her behind the back of the petitioner to receive any death

benefits of her husband. Had the first respondent got any evil

intention of misappropriating the death benefits of her husband, she

would not have pleaded for declaring the petitioner, who is mother

of the deceased, as Class-I legal heir. It appears that the petitioner

has filed this revision with an ulterior motive to make suffer the

respondents, who are none other than her daughter-in-law and

grandchildren, which is not at all accepted in the given facts and

circumstances.

10. Furthermore, the purpose of filing the suit is to receive the

death benefits of the deceased, who is husband of the first

respondent, father of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and son of the

petitioner herein. By filing the present revision, hurdles are being

created by the petitioner that she is not being benefited and even

she has not allowed the wife and children of her son to get the

benefits and made them to suffer all these years.

11. I do not find any reasonable grounds to interfere with the

impugned judgment, as the same does not suffer from any infirmity

or illegality. The civil revision is liable to be dismissed.

12. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

13. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, stand closed.

_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 05.01.2023 Lrkm