Remanded

Kanchibotla Venkataramana v. State Bank of India

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Feb 2021CMA/1323/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal concerns the rejection of a Succession Certificate application by the lower court due to lack of documentary proof of divorce between the deceased brother and his wife. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remitted the matter to the trial court to afford the appellants an opportunity to adduce evidence regarding the alleged divorce. No costs were awar

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remitted to court below to pass appropriate order after affording appellants opportunity to adduce evidence regarding divorce.

Kanchibotla Venkataramana Vs State Bank of… — Succession and Inheritance | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO & THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1323 of 2018

¶2

JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Ms Justice J.Uma Devi)

¶3

The order, dated 16.08.2018, in S.O.P No.34 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, is assailed by the petitioners therein, raising a preliminary ground that when the appellants/petitioners themselves have given the date of divorce decree dated 31.07.2007 in O.P.No.539 of 2005 on the file of the 1^st Additional Senior Civil Judge at Ranga Reddy, the court below ought not to have rejected their application made for issuance of Succession Certificate, as the said information itself would indicate that the marriage between their brother Dr.Vemuri Srirama Sastry and his wife Smt.Parvathi is dissolved by granting a decree of divorce. They have raised another contention that despite filing of some documents to show that all claims between their deceased brother and his wife are resolved and that permanent alimony is paid by their deceased brother to his wife, the court below ought not to have rejected their request made for issuance of Succession Certificate simply on the ground of non-filing of certified copy of the order in O.P.No.539 of 2005 and other relating documents etc., etc.

¶4

Apart from the aforementioned contentions, the appellants/petitioners have raised yet another contention that when no claim is made by any third party on the estate of their deceased

¶5

UDPR,J & JUD,J CMA.1323 of 2018

¶6

¶7

brother, the court below ought not to have refused to grant the relief claimed by them.

¶8

We have read the order impugned. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as under:

¶9

“....The petitioners claim that they are the only legal heirs to the deceased Dr.Vemuri Srirama Sastry. Even the couple had no issues, further his wife took divorce. Their claim that they are Class-I legal heirs. The schedule of Hindu Succession Act shows brother and sisters are Class-II heirs and the widow is the Class-I heir. Even according to the petitioners, the deceased Dr.Vemuri Srirama Sastry was married but divorced. If really there was divorce, no doubt, the petitioners being the sisters and brother of deceased Dr.Vemuri Srirama Sastry will be entitled for estates more particularly property claimed in the Succession petition. If really there was divorce they should have filed the decree or order of said O.P.No.539 of 2005. Except the death certificate of Dr.Vemuri Srirama Sastry, no other document is filed and unless it is clear whether there was divorce between the deceased Dr.Vemuri Srirama Sastry and his wife, the petitioners cannot claim the right in the estate of the deceased Dr.Vemuri Srirama Sastry. Hence petition is devoid of merits.”

¶10

Since a preliminary ground is raised by the appellants themselves in the appeal grounds that the court below has failed to consider the document filed by them along with O.P.No.539 of 2005 which includes the Lok Adalat award and decree of divorce, we have gone into the contents of the order impugned. The order impugned only indicates that the appellants/petitioners have filed the death certificate of the deceased Dr.Vemuri Srirama Sastry. Though in the order impugned a reference is made about filing of the death certificate of Dr.Vemuri Srirama Sastry, and it is marked as Ex.A1,

¶11

UDPR,J & JUD,J CMA.1323 of 2018

¶12

¶13

no list of documents is appended to the order impugned. It is understood from the grounds urged by the appellants particularly from ground No.4 that they have mentioned the date of decree of divorce in O.P.No.539 of 2005 on the file of the 1^st Additional Senior Civil Judge at Ranga Reddy. But as a matter of fact, copy of the decree in O.P.No.539 of 2005 has not been filed either in this court or in the trial court.

¶14

Raising of a simple assertion in the pleadings that the decree of divorce is passed in O.P.No.539 of 2005 and that the marriage between the petitioners’ deceased brother and his wife has come to an end, does not absolve them from the responsibility of discharging the burden of proving their case, and such primary duty has not been discharged by them to the satisfaction of the court below. It appears that the petitioners have not placed any documentary evidence before the court below in proof of their case, except contending that the marriage between their deceased brother and his wife Parvathi has come to an end by granting decree of divorce. The petitioners have also not brought in any documentary evidence with regard to deposits, if any, made by their deceased brother in the respondents’ bank by marking the fixed deposit receipts etc.

¶15

In that view of the matter, the order assailed cannot be held as invalid.

¶16

Though we have not noticed any apparent error in the order impugned, having considered the submission of the appellants’ counsel that the appellants have document to prove that the

¶17

UDPR,J & JUD,J CMA.1323 of 2018

¶18

¶19

marriage of their deceased brother and his wife has been dissolved by granting decree of divorce, and in so far as the claim they have made regarding the fixed deposits made by the appellants’ deceased brother, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter back to the court below to dispose it of as per law, by providing a reasonable opportunity to the appellants to adduce evidence regarding the alleged divorce between their brother and his wife.

¶20

In view of the above, the order impugned is set aside and the appeal is allowed accordingly, remitting the matter back to the court below, giving liberty to the appellants to adduce evidence regarding the alleged divorce between their brother and his wife before the court below, and that the court below taking into consideration the same shall dispose of the S.O.P.No.34 of 2017 by passing an appropriate order, as per law. No costs.

¶21

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.

¶22

______________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO,J

¶23

_______________ J.UMA DEVI,J

¶24

Date: 03.02.2021 Dsr

Kanchibotla Venkataramana v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanchibotla Venkataramana v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Sri Satyanarayana Modern Rice Mill Vs the Assistant Commissioner(State Taxes)-Ii

M/S Sree Balaji Transport Vs the Commissioner of Customs

M/s Maruthi Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Vs Union of India

M/s. Sri Balaji Rice Mill Vs The Deputy Commissioner (St) (Int)

M/s Beach Minerals Company Andhra Pvt. Limited, Vs Goll Satya Sailendra

The Ap State Road Transport Corporation Vs Jayanthi Satyanarayana Murthy and 3 Ors.