Dismissed

Gande Vishnu Madhav Rao through his G.P.a, Gande Bhanu Madhav Rao v. Puppala Chinthamani

Telangana HC26 Sept 2023CRP/2432/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench disposed of two civil revision petitions challenging a lower court's order on impleading legal representatives in a suit for cancellation of sale deed and declaration of title. The High Court held that while an adopted son is a legal heir, he cannot be treated as the legal representative if the deceased executed a valid will in favor of another heir, as succession remains open for that

What did the court decide?

CRP.No.2418 disposed off and CRP.No.2432 dismissed; pleas of illegal impleading and admission of legal representative rejected.

Gande Vishnu Madhav Rao through his G.P.a… — Succession and Inheritance | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32sl I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY^OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos:^{241 8 & 2432ot 2OB}

¶7

Civil Revision Petition No.2418 ot^2O23

¶8

Petition Under 227 of Constitution of lndia^{against the Orderdated} 22-06'2023 in 1.A.No.491 of^2OO7 in O.S.No.129^{of 2006 on the file of the Courtof} the Senior Civil Judge at Jagtial.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Gande Vishwa Madav Rao, S/o. Jagan^{MadhavRao, Age. 43 years,Rl/o.} Chilvakodur^presently at U.S.A, through^{his G.P.A GandeVikram MadavRao,} S/o. Krishna Rao, Age: 68^{years, Occ.} Agriculture,^{Rlio.Chilvakodur village.}

¶11

...Petitioner/Proposed L.R of deceased^plaintiff

¶12

AND

¶13

Gande Laxmi Devi^{(DIED), (died} on^{21-Ol -2007} ).

¶14

...Respondent No.1/Deceased Plaintiff

¶15

Gande Uday Bhaskar Rao, Sio. Sudarshan^{Rao, Age. 50 years, O_cc.} Agriculture, -Rl/ o. Chilwakodur village of Gollapalli Mandal, Jagtial District

¶16

...Respondent No.2/Defendant

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶18

Petition under Section¹ 51 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Court may be pleasedto} dispense with the filing of the certified copy^{of the orderin lA.No.491of 2007 in} OS.No.129 of 2006 dated 22-06-2023 on^{the file of Senior Civil Judge,at Jagityal} and the petitioner is filing a Xerox copy^{of the same and the petitionerherein} undertakes to file the certified copy whenever^received.

¶19

¶20

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay entire proceedings in lA.No.491 of 2OO7 in OS.No.129 of 2006 dated 22-06-2023 on the file of Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, at Jagityal including furlher proceedings in the suit, pending disposal of the above revision.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SURESH SHIV SAGAR

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K. VENUMADHAV

¶24

Civil Revision Petition No.2432 of 2023

¶25

Petition Under 227 ot Conslitution of lndia against the Order dated 22-06-2023 in l.A.No.41 7 of 2007 in O.S.No.129 of 2006 on the file of the Court of lhe Senior Civil Judge at Jagtial.

¶26

Between:

¶27

Gande Vishnu Madhav Rao through his G.P.A, Gande Bhanu Madhav Rao, S/o. Vikram Madhav Rao, Age. 50 years, Occ. Medical Practitioner, R/ o. Chilwakodur village, presently residing at plot No.201, Sai Krupa residency, D.D colony, Hyderabad.

¶28

...Petitioner/Respondent No.3

¶29

AND

¶30

Puppala Chinthamani, (died on 121812022) ... Petitioner/Pla intiff No.2

¶31

Puppala Srinivas Rao, S/o. Late Prabhakar, Age. 51 years, Occ. Singareni Employee

¶32

Puppala Sridhar Rao, S/o. Late Prabhakar, Age.48 years, Occ. Private Employee

¶33

Puppala Srikantha Rao, S/o. Late Prabhakar, Age 46 years, Occ. Teacher,

¶34

(All are Ryo.H.No.2-4,Vemnoor village, Palakurthi Mandal of Peddapalli Diskict.)

¶35

... Petitioners/Petitioners

¶36

Gande Laxmi Devi^(died on 21-07 -2007)...Respondent No.1/Deceased Plaintiff.

¶37

Gande Uday Bhaskar Rao, S/o. Sudarshan Rao, Age. 50 years, Occ. Agriculture, R:/o. Chilwakodur village of Gollapalli Mandal, Jagtial District

¶38

... Respondent No.2IDefendant

¶39

.:':l
E

¶40

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶41

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^{pleased to stay} entire proceedings in lA No 417 of 2007 in O.S.No.129 of 2006, daled 22-06-2023 on the file of the Honourable Senior Civil Judge, At Jagtial including further proceedings in the suil pending disposal of the above revision.

¶42

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SURESH SHIV SAGAR

¶43

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K. VENUMADHAV

¶44

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶45

¶46

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶47

CTVIL REVIS ION PETITION Nos.2418 &'2432^of2023

¶48

COMMON ORDER:

¶49

Civil Revision Petition No.24 18 of 2023^{is lilecl aggrieved by} the order dated 22.06.2023^{passed by} thc^{Senior Civil Judge'} Jagtial, in IA.No.49 1 of 2OO7 in^{OS.No. l29 of 2006, u'herebythe} learned Senior Civil Judge, dismissed^{the said applicationfiled by} the petitioner herein to implead^{him as Legal Representativeof} deceased plaintiff Gande Laxmi Devi in^{the suit.}

¶50

Civil Revision Petition No.2432 of 2023^{is lileci aggrievedby} the order dated 22.06.2023^passed by^{thc Senior Civil Judge,} Jagtial, in IA.No.417 of^{2OO7 in OS.No.l29 ol 2006, r',hereby the} learned Senior Civil Judge, allowed the^{application filed by Puppala} Chinthamani to bring her on record^{as LegalRepresentative of} deceased plaintiff Galde Laxmi^Devi in^{the suit.}

¶51

Aggrieved by the common order^passed in^{IA.No.49 1 of 2OO7} arrd IA.No.417 of 2OO7 in OS.No.^{129 of 2006, dated22.06.2023} these Civil Revision^{Petitions are filed.}

¶52

The petitioner herein who is the^{petitionerinIA'No.49Iof} 2007 is the adopted^{son of} the^{deceased plaintiff GandeLaxmiDevi.} Puppala Chintha Mani u,ho fi1ed IA.No.417 of 2OO7 is the^sister's daughter of the deceased plaintifl Gande Laxmi Devi,^{irr s'hose} name

¶53

¶54

registered will^{deeddated 2l'O7 2003r'r'asexecutedby the deceased} plaintiff in^{respectof the suit scheduleproperty'bequeathingthe} said propertY^{in her favour.}

¶55

The suit OS.No.^{129 of 2006 was filed by the deceased plaintiff} Gande Laxmi^{Devi for calcellation of the registeredsale deed vide} document Nos.2410/2006^{&' 24lll2006dated 17'10'2006 and for} declaration of^{title and perpetual injunction'Pendingthe suit' the} plaintiff G.Laxmi^{Devi died on 2l07 '2OO7 'Accordingly'the} petitionerinlA.No.4lTof2OOT,PuppalaChinthamanifiledthesaid IA to permit^{her to be the legal heir under Ord'er-22' Rule-3 and 5 of} CPC as she is the^{testamentaryheir by virtue of the will deed dated} 21.O7.2003 in respect^{of the suit scheduleproperty'lA'No'49 1 of} 2007 was filed under^{ord.er-22 Rule-3 of cPC by the petitioner} hereintobringhimaslegalrepresentativeofthedeceasedplaintiff since he was the^{adoptedson vide registeredadoptiondeeddated} 29.O8.1986

¶56

The learned Senior^{Civil Judgepassed common order in both} thelAsbydismissinglA.No.4glof2ooTfiledbythepetitioner herein and allowed^IA.No.4l7 l2OO7^{filed by PuppalaChintha Mani'}

¶57

The learned^{Senior Civil Judge conducted enquiryand} examined witnesses^{PWs. 1 to 3 on behalf ofP'Chinthamani}

¶58

¶59

(petitioner in IA.No.417 /2oor) and RWs.1 and 2 on behalf of Gande Vishwa Madhava Rao (petitioner in IA.No.49l /2OO7l to determine the lega-l representative in the suit. Learned Senior Civil Judge found that the deceased plaintiff executed testamentary disposition which is a registered will deed dated 2LO7.2003, as such, succession is not open to the adopted son. He also found that though there is no dispute regarding adoption of the petitioner in IA.No.49 I l2OO7 as adopted son, the same is not enough to bring him as Legal Representative of the deceased / plaintiff, in view of the registered will deed.

¶60

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in IA.No.491/2007 would submit that the learned Senior Civil Judge has committed an error in disallowing the petitioner in IA.No.491/2007 to come on record though he is the aclopted son. In fact, the Court below ought to have allowed both the IAs; and that the court belou' came to a wrong conclusion that the succession is not open to the adopted son when there is testamentar5z disposition by the deceased plaintiff in favour of^puppala Chinthamani.

¶61

He relied on the Judgment of this Court in G,N.Kishore Reddg u. R.Venugopal Rao and others r wherein this Court had permitted all the legal representatives on record to be impleaded in

'^arR zooq ap agg

!l'r

thesuit.Itwasheldatpala2lto23ofthesaidJudgmentas

¶66

follows;

¶67

"21. With^{great respect to the learned Judge' I om of the uieut n} that tle said iudgment^{does not represent correct position of} lau-t. In this^{regordreference moy be made to the judgment of} tte Full Bench^{of the sameHtgh Courl in Mohinderkaur tt'} Picira Singhz .^{The purport of the sameu'rusexplainedbg} another Single^{Judge in S'CharaniitSingh a' Bharatinder} Singhs, as^under

¶68

"A Fult Bench^{of this Court in Mohinder Kaur u Piara} Singh, has^{held ihat determinationfo the point as to tt.tho} is ihe legol^{representatiueof the deceosed. plaintiffor} "i"f."aiit undLr order 22, Rule 5 of the ciuil P'C is onlg iii^{tn"purposes of bining legal re.presentotiueson} "re:cord fir tie condu-cting of ihose legal proceedings onlg and d"oes^{not operoteas res judicte and the inter se} i,iip"t" betuteei^{the iual legal representatiues has to be} separate iiiependentty^{tied- anddecidedin} p)roiedings,in^{uiettt of this the proper course to follotuis} 'to bing iU tne bgat- representatiues on record so Lhat li.g ,iu.to"fe^{thL estute of the decease-d. for ultimate} L.i.ft of thi^{reat legalrepresentatiuesThis tttould also} auoiit dilag^{in disposalof the suit "}

¶69

The ottention^{of the learnedSingleJudge' tuho decided} Raj Kumar^{Atias RajinderSingh rt' Bimla Kumaria} '^does not appear to^{haue been inuited to the judgment of the Fult} Bench in Mohind-er^{Kaur'scase (supra)'When the effort under} tle ualrous^{prouisions of C'P'C is to auoid multiplicitgof} proceedings, and' for^{odjudicationof the related disputesin the} same^{proceedings,the parties cannotbe diuen to different} Courts or to^{institute different proceedings touching on different} focets^{of the same major issue' Such a course of action utould}

¶70

'^{atn tggtpH t3o} t ltR t988 ptt 123

¶71

o arR rggt pu ao:

¶72

¶73

result in conflicting judgments and instead of resoluing the disputes, they end up in creation, confusion and conllict.

¶74

What emerges out of the discussion in preceding paragraphs is that it is not necessary that in euery case, a legal heir is en.tttled to be treated as legal representatiue also. The permission granted to represent the estate of a deceased party to a proceedings connot be treated as a final adjudi<:tttion on the rights, except u.there it is decided as a specific issue. All the claims relating to the propertA or subject matter need to be dealt within the same proceedings, instead of the parties being required to institute parallel or tangent proceedings."

¶75

In the above said case, the Court permitted the step son of the deceased and also two others in whose favour the deceased executed a till' bequeathing the suit schedule prcperry as legal representative. The facts of the case differ from the present case. In the case cited, the property therein was settled in cne,s favour and \vill' executed in favour of two others. For the said reason, all the three were permitted to prosecute as Legal Representatives of the deceased.

¶76

I 1 . In the present case, it is not the case of th e petitioner in lA.No.491/20O7 that the suit schedule property was settled in his favour. Admittedly, on trial, the Court found that though the petitioner was adopted son, the property in question was

¶77

¶78

¶79

bequeathed^{in favour of P'Chinthamarlithe petitionerin lA'No 417} of 2OO7.

¶80

t2. The^{petitioner in IA'No'4g7l2OO7 who is the adoptedson} cannot lay^{claim on the property whichwas bequeathedin favour of} Chinthamani.^{He can always question the \ri11'executed in favour of} P.Chinthamani^{in a separateproceedings'}

¶81

In^{Suresh Kumar Bansal v' Krishna Bansals the Honouable} Supreme^{Court held as under:}

¶82

'20. It is^{now utelL settledthatdetermination of the question' as to Luho} is tte legol^{representatiue of the deceased plaintiffor defendant under} Order 22^{RuLe 5 of the Code of Ciuil Procedureis ontgfor the ourpose} on record for^{the conQuctinqof those} ofbinoinq^{leqalrepresentatiues} ooerate as^{resiudicataand the} le al^{proceedinqs onluond d} inter se dis^{oute bettl'teen the nUA} I leqal re0re sentat^{iues has tobe} inde ndentl tned andde^{cided in} robate roceedin^s If this is allouted to^{be caried on} for^{a decisionof an euiction srtit or otherallied} suits,thesuitstl.louldbed'elayed,bguhichontathel,e'nantstl.lillbe beneftted."

¶83

In^{view of the aforesaid Judgmentrenderedby the Honourable} Supreme^{Court, the petitioner(adoptedson ar.rd petitionerin} IA.No.49^{1/2007)can always question the probateproceedings} independently^{and cannotclaim the correcLlless or otherwise about}

¶84

5 (2010) 2 SCC 162

¶85

¶86

¶87

the will deed executed in favour of P. Chintamani (petitioner 1n IA.No.477 l2OO7) in the present suit.

¶88

With the above observation, CRP.No.2418 of 2023 filed by the petitioner in IA.No.49 1/2OO7 stands disposed off and CRp.No.2432 of 2023 stands dismissed.

¶89

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Revision Petition, shall stands closed.

¶90

SdL B. CHANDRA PRAKASH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// (fu)

¶91

SECTION OFFICER

¶92

One Fair Copy to^{the Hon'bleSRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER} - (For His Lordship's kind Perusal)

¶93

To,

¶94