Allowed

D.Panduranga Raju Komarigiripatnam E.GAND2 v. D.v.Krishnamraju Koarigiripatnam E.GAND2

Telangana HC21 Feb 2012CRP/1098/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Civil Revision Petition, the Hon'ble High Court set aside the orders of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal and Primary Tribunal, allowing the petitioners' claim of vested remainder under a Will. The Court held that testamentary succession does not fall under Section 7(2) of the A.P. Land Reforms Act and remanded the case for redetermination excluding land covered by the Will.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed; orders of both Tribunals set aside; case remanded to Primary Tribunal for redetermination excluding land covered by the Will.

D.Panduranga Raju Komarigiripatnam E.GAND2 Vs… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

*HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY +C.R.P.No.1098 of 2001

¶2

% 21-2-2012

¶3

# Datla Panduranga Raju and others .. Petitioners

¶4

Vs. $ Datla Venkata Krishnam Raju and others .. Respondents

¶5

<GIST:

¶6

>HEAD NOTE:

¶7

! Counsel for petitioners : E. Phani Kumar ^ Counsel for respondents : Government Pleader for Arbitration

¶8

? CASES REFERRED :

¶9

Nil

¶10

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.R.P.No.1098 of 2001

¶11

Date : 21-2-2012

¶12

Between: Datla Panduranga Raju and others .. Petitioners

¶13

and

¶14

Datla Venkata Krishnam Raju and others .. Respondents

¶15

Counsel for petitioners : E. Phani Kumar Counsel for respondents : Government Pleader for Arbitration

¶16

The Court made the following:

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 21-11-2000 in L.R.A.No.58/1995 on the file of Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari District, whereby she has confirmed order of the Land Reforms Tribunal, in L.C.C.No.1086/APM/75, dated 5- 6-1995.

¶19

The facts in brief, which are necessary for disposal of this Revision, are stated hereunder: One Bangaru Raju was the original owner of the properties. After his death, his wife filed declaration before the Land Reforms Tribunal (for short “the Primary Tribunal”) on 11-4-1975. The Tribunal, by its order dated 19-2-1994 determined that the declarant had surplus land to the extent of 0.2137 Standard Holding (SH). The declarant died on

¶20

13-7-1986. Purporting to select the surplus lands for surrender, the Primary Tribunal has issued Form-8 notice on 6-1-1995. On 8-2-1995 the petitioners have filed their objections wherein they have pleaded that they are the holders of vested remainder under Will dated 20-5-1970 executed by Bangaru Raju. It is their case that under the said Will, the widow of Bangaru Raju, i.e., the declarant, was given life interest and the petitioners were given the vested remainder and that with the death of the declarant on 13-71986, they have succeeded to the properties under the Will. The Primary Tribunal has initially rejected the petitioners’ claim. The appeal filed by them having been dismissed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal (for short “the Appellate Tribunal”), the petitioners filed C.R.P.No.4749/1996 in this Court. This Court, by order dated 12-7-2000 allowed the revision and remanded the case to the Appellate Tribunal for deciding the issue relating to the validity of Will dated 20-5-1970. Purporting to reconsider the said issue, the Appellate Tribunal has reconfirmed its earlier order. Questioning both these orders, the petitioners filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶21

A perusal of the order of the Appellate Tribunal would show that it has made a perfunctory approach. It failed to consider the relevant aspects while considering the issue relating to the genuineness or otherwise of the Will. It is not in dispute that the declarant and the petitioners have

¶22

initiated proceedings for issuance of succession certificate by filing O.P.No.13/1974 and the same was granted by order dated 17-7-1974 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Amalapuram, who is competent to entertain the said proceedings. The record of the Primary Tribunal would show that the said order is marked as Ex.C-2. The record also contains the petition filed by the applicants for issuance of the succession certificate wherein a clear reference to the Will in question has been made. These facts have remained uncontroverted. Both the Tribunals have proceeded on the premise that since the property was not mutated in the name of the declarant during her life time and that the Will has seen the light of the day only in 1995, the same cannot be held to be genuine.

¶23

It is nobody’s case that the land ceiling proceedings were in contemplation when the succession proceedings were initiated in the year 1974. The declaration filed was much later and the order of determination was also passed thereafter. The petitioners have in fact examined the attestor and the scribe of the Will before the Appellate Tribunal but no discussion has been made by the Appellate Tribunal with respect to the evidence adduced by the petitioners. Merely because there is no mention of the Will in the declaration filed by the declarant and that mutation has not taken place, they do not by themselves cast a cloud on the genuineness of the Will. In the absence of an order

¶24

of the competent Court granting succession certificate, those considerations would have been relevant and material. Since the Court of competent jurisdiction has granted the succession certificate much prior to the filing of declaration by the declarant, I have no reason to doubt the genuineness of the Will.

¶25

If the existence and genuineness of the Will is accepted, the petitioners will succeed to the properties covered by the Will. Reference to Section 7(2) of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short "the Act") by the Primary Tribunal is wholly misplaced. The said provision only declares any alienations by way of sale, lease, gift, exchange, usufructory mortgage or otherwise any partition effected or trust created etc., on or after 2-5-1972, void. In this case the petitioners are making claim through testamentary succession by way of a Will which does not fall under any of the categories of transactions mentioned in Section 7(2) of the Act. Even otherwise, the prohibition of transfer, if any, contained in the said provision will not get attracted as the Will in question was executed prior to 2-5-1972.

¶26

For the above mentioned reasons, the orders of both the Tribunals are set-aside. The Primary Tribunal is directed to pass an order of redetermination after excluding the extent of land covered by the Will dated 20-5-1970.

¶27

The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed.

¶28

As a sequel, C.R.P.M.P.No.4752/2001 and 8742/2006 are disposed of as infructuous.

¶29

________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy

¶30

Date : 21-2-2012

¶31

L.R. copies

¶32

D.Panduranga Raju Komarigiripatnam E.GAND2 v. D.v.Krishnamraju Koarigiripatnam E.GAND2

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Panduranga Raju Komarigiripatnam E.GAND2 v. D.v.Krishnamraju Koarigiripatnam E.GAND2

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramachandra Raju Vs Narahari Raj

Gudapati Madhavi Lata Vs Koratala Radha Krishna Murthy , Radha Krishna

Satyavolu Kameswara Rao Vs Surisetti Krishamurthy

C.Subrahmanya Raju Vs Syndicate Bank

Panthadi Satheyya and 3 Others Vs Chekka Adinarayana and 5 Others

Chaladi Niranjan, Vs Katta Subrahmanyam