Allowed

Mallampalli Sambhu Prasad and 2 others v. Larsen and Toubro Limited and 2 others

Telangana HC17 Mar 2022CRP/546/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the civil revision petition and set aside the lower court order that returned the succession petition on grounds of territorial jurisdiction. The Court held that a District Judge has jurisdiction if property lies within its limits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 21.01.2022 set aside; lower court directed to take on board and proceed with succession application.

Mallampalli Sambhu Prasad and 2 others Vs… — Succession and Inheritance | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH^{DAYOF I,,IARCH} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY TWO}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL^BHUYAN

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 6 0F 2022

¶6

Petition under Article 227 of the^{Constitutionof lndia aggrieved by the order} Daled 21 .01 .2022 in O.P.SR.No.7300^{of 2021 on the file of the Court of the I} Senior Civil Judge, City Civil^{Courts at Hyderabad.}

¶7

Between:

¶8

IVALLAIVPALLI SAIVBHU PRASAD,^{S/o.Late Bhairava PrasadRao,Aged82} vears. Occ. Rtd.Emplovee,^{PermanentRlo.2-2-6471774,Srinivasa Nagar} bolony, Bagh Amberfet, Hyderabad.^{TemporarilyRlo. 3630' Font Hill Drive,} Ellicott City, tMD 21042,^USA.

¶9

2 P. IVONICA PRASAD, W/o. P.^{GopiKrishna,D/o.MallampalliSambhu} Prasad, Aged 50 years, Occ. Pv't.Employee, Both are- Perminent Rlo.2-2-6471774,^{Srinivasa Nagar Colony,Bagh} Amberpet, Hyderabad. Temporarily^{R/o 3630, FontHill Drive, Ellicott City,} Ni D 21042, USA,

¶10

3 N/ALLAIVPALLI HETVANT PRASAD,^{S/o. l,4allampalliSambhu Prasad,Aged} 49 years, Occ. Pvt. Employee, Permanent^{Rlo.2-2-647177A, Srinrvasa Nagar} Col6ny, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad.^{TemporarilyR/o. 3603, Rave Road,} Bloomington, IL 6'1 704, USA. AII the ,bove Petitioners are represented^{by their GPA HolderBHYRAVA} PRASAD IVALLAIVAPALLY, S/o. Late^{N4 Nageswara Prasad, Aged 54 years'} Occ. Pvt. Employee, R/o.Flat No.1001,^{Building No.16,Hill RidgeApts,} Gachibowli' Hvderabad- 500032 ..,REVrsroN^{pETTToNERS/pETrroNERS}

¶11

AND

¶12

LARSEN and TOUBRO LllVlTED, Having^it Office at^{H.No.5-10-173, Fateh} Ir,4aidan Road,2nd Floor, Vasantha Chambers, Hyderabad- 500^{004.and L} and T House N.lr,4.lt4arg, Ballard Estate,^{l,4umbai,It,4a harashtra-400001}

¶13

2 KARVY CON/PUTERSHARE PRIVATE LIN/|TED, Having its Registered^Office At. Karvy House, 46, 8-2-609/K, Avenue 4, Street No.1, Banjara^Hills, Hyderabad-500 034.

¶14

All Concerned,

¶15

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI PRADEEP REDDY FOR SRI VEERA SHIVA KUMAR

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARED

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

rroN'BLE SRr jUSI',ICE UJJAr- Br-rUyAN

¶20

Civil Rcvision Petition No.546 o12022

¶21

Otder: l',, t t,,t,i .\n ld!. t lt bt,...tt)

¶22

Heard Mr. Pradeep Reddyr, leamed counsel representing Mr. Veera Shir.a Kumar, leamed counsel for the revision petitionen.

¶23

This revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the C-onstitution of India against order dated 21.AI.2a22 passed by the C-oun of the I Senior Cvil Judge, Gty Gvil Cor,rrt at Hyderabad (for shon^'the coufi below), in O.P.(Sr) No.730O of 2021.

¶24

Petitioner No.1 is the husband of late Smt. Mallampalli Lalshmi Prasad whereas petitioners No. 2 and 3 are their dar.rghter and son.

¶25

Smt. Mallampalli Lakshmi Prasad died on 20.a7.2010. As per the death cenificate issued by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal C-orporation (GHMQ, at the time of her death, she was a resident of HB-39, I Cross Road, Sainikpuri, Secundembad.

¶26

..)..

¶27

Petitioners filed a petition before^{the court below under} Section 372 of the Indian^{SuccessionAcq 1925, for grant of} Succession Gnificate in^favour of^{the petitionersin respect of the} shares belor.rging to late Smt. \4rllampalli^{LakshmiPrasadin} respondents No.1 and 2/cornpanies,^{more specificallydetaileclin the} schedule appended to the petition.^{The petidon was numbered as} O.P(S4 No.73O0 ol 2021.^{By the order dated 21.01'.2022,coun} below retumed the petition^{to the petitionersto be submitted before} appropriate court having^{jurisdiction.}

¶28

Aggrieved, present revision^{petiticinhas been filed.}

¶29

7 At the outset, relevant Portion^{of the orderdated 21'01.2022is} extracted hereunder:

¶30

"C-oming to the case on^hand, though^{the counselfor the} petitioners contendccl rhat^{this courti-s ha"ing territorial} jurisdiction as the offices of the respondent Nos.i^{and 2 are} situated wirhin t-he lirnits of^{rhis cotut, since the deceasedwas} having ;r fixed place o[^{residenceat Sainikpuri,Secunderabad,} the place of the property^{i't., office o[ the respondenm carx]ot} be considered.^{Funher,the pl,rce ol the residence of the} petitionen also cannot^{be consideredfor decidingthe tenitorial} jurisdiction. In view of dre citation relied upon by the courxel

¶31

-t

¶32

for the petirioners rrnrl in view of Section .1Z l o[ Indian Succession Act, thi-s cor.u1 is of the view rhat this courl has no territorial jurisdiction to enrefiain the Succession OP :rs rhe ordin:iry place o[ residence oi the deceased was at Sainikpun, Secunclerabarl. Hence, the pettion is retumed to submit before the proper coun having jurisdiction."

¶33

From the above, it is seen that though it was contended before the coun belowthat offices of respondents No.1 and 2 are situated within the limits of the said courr, however, on the ground rhar deceased was a resident of Sainikpuri, Secunderabad, place of the propeny i.e., office of the respondenrs cannor be considered. Hence, the petition u'as rerumed.

¶34

Section 371 o[ the L.rdian Succession Act, 1925 (for shon^,the Act) is relevant. The same is extracted hereunder:

¶35

"Court having jtrrisdiction ro grant certificate:

¶36

The District Judge within whose jurisdiction the deceased ordinarily resided at rhe time of his death, or, if at that time had no fixed place of residence, rhe District Judge, wirhin whose jurisdiction any pan of rhe properq, of the deceasecl may be found, may granr a Gnificate under this Pan."

¶37

,'..., 10. From a perusal of Section 371 as extracted above, it is seen

¶38

that the District Judge, within whose jurisdiction the deceased

¶39

¶40

ordinarily rcsided at the time of his death, or, if at that time^h:rd no flxed place of residence, the District Judge, within whose^jLrisdiction any part oi the proper-ty of the deceased^rnay be^{for"rnd,maygranta} certificate.

¶41

\7e may also refer to clause (b) of sub-section^{(1) of} Section 372 of the Act,^rvhich deals^{u'ith applicationfor successiotr} cenificates. SLrch application shor-rld^{contain, amongst otl'rers, tl.re} followrng pafticulars:

¶42

"Ordinary residence o[ the deceased at the tirr-r of his death and if such residence^w,rs not^{withinthe locallimiso[ the} jurisdicdon of the Judge, to whom application is nude, then the properry of the deceased within^{thoselimits."}

¶43

1,2. A conjoint reading of Sections 371^{and 372(1)(b)of the Act} would go to show that even the C-oun of^District Judge,^within whose limits the properry of.the deceased may be^{four-rd, wouldhave} the^junsdiction to entertain an application^{under Section 372 ol the} Act.

¶44

13.^'fhat being the position, impugned^{order dated 21.A1.2022,} passed by the coun below^{in O.P.(Sr) No.TlOO of 202fis set aside'}

¶45

¶46

Court below is directed to take on board, the perition filed by the petidoners under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 2.e., O.P.(SR).No.7300 of 2021., and alier registration, proceed with the same in accordance with law.

¶47

Gvil Revision Petition is, accordingly, alloued. Related interlocutory applications, pending if any, also stancl disposecl of.

¶48

No cosrs.

¶49

L6. Registrvto retum the original doclret orderdared 21.01.2022 in O.P.(SR) No.7300 of 2021., as annexed to this revision peririon, ro the petitioner.

¶50

SD/.M.MANJULA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' ttht

¶51

SECTION OFFICER

¶52

To,

¶53

The I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courls at Hyderabad

¶54

One CC to Sri Veera Shiva Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]

¶55

Two CD Copies 4. One Spare Copy s br

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1710312022

ORDER

CRP.No.S46 ot 2022

ALLOWING THE CRP

Mallampalli Sambhu Prasad and 2 others v. Larsen and Toubro Limited and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mallampalli Sambhu Prasad and 2 others v. Larsen and Toubro Limited and 2 others

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

M/s. C.V. Ramaniah and Company, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.

Lokanandhi Lalith Shankar Vs Dr. Rabindranath.C.

Sri Jagapathi Mahesh Vs Jadata Ravindra and 15 others

Roppen Transportation Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and another

Roppen Transportation Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and another

Gudem Mahipal Reddy Vs Sri Pdtti Chandu Kumar