MASARATH JAHAN BEGUM Vs. MASOOD HASHIM ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner invokes the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 31.08.2009 passed in I.R.P. No. 05 of 2009 by Respondent No. 18 i.e. the Ranga Reddy District Legal Services Authority, L.B. Nagar, and for a consequential direction to Respondent No. 18 to issue a Certificate under Section 13 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as - 'the 1987 Act') in her favour enabling her to institute a Suit for partition against Respondent Nos. 3 to 13 in accordance with the draft plaint submitted to the Legal Services Authority.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the Petitioner filed a petition under Section 13(1) of the 1987 Act before Respondent No. 18 seeking legal aid by granting exemption of Court fee for an amount of Rs. 14,65,355/-enabling her to institute a Suit for partition on the file of the District Court, Ranga Reddy District; that, according to her, O.S. No. 42 of 1962 on the file of the I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, was filed by her father late Hashim Ali Khan who died on 23.09.200; that in the final decree proceedings in I.A. No. 854 of 1984 in O.S. No. 42 of 1962, herself and Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein were brought on record as legal representatives of late Hashim Ali Khan and thus she is aware of all the proceedings and in the final decree dated 07.07.2005, towards the share of late Hashim Khan, an extent of Ac.1-22 gts in Sy. No. 63 and separate extent of Ac.7-31 gts in Sy. Nos. 68, 69 and 70 of Madhapur village, Serilingampally Mandal, was allotted and the entire extent of land including the suit schedule property was exclusively allotted to Defendant Nos. 3 to 16 therein in terms of the assignment recognised by the Court in I.A. No. 479 of 1999 dated 22.04.1999 and that no appeal was preferred against the said final decree proceedings or assignment proceedings, as such, they became final and binding on the parties concerned. In the final decree, it was also recorded that possession of the suit schedule property was already delivered to the assignees-Defendant Nos. 3 to 16. In the proposed Suit, it is prayed that a final decree for partition and separate possession by metes and bounds may be passed directing Defendant Nos. 1 to 16 therein and to deliver vacant and physical possession of the Plaintiff's 29.16% share in the suit schedule lands bearing distinct revenue survey Nos. 63, 68, 69 and 70 of Madhapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy Distrit, totally admeasuring Acs.9-13 gts., to her and for other reliefs.

(3.) Chapter-IV of the 1987 Act deals with entitlement to legal services. Section 12 thereof deals with criteria for granting legal services. According to Section 12(c) thereof, a woman or a child irrespective of financial status is entitled to legal services. According to Section 13(1) thereof, a person who satisfies all or any of the criteria specified in Section 12 shall be entitled to receive legal services provided that the authority concerned is satisfied that such person has prima facie case to prosecute or to defend. Along with the petition, she also filed copies of plaint in O.S. No. 42 of 1962 on the file of the I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyerabad, filed by her father; preliminary decree in O.S. No. 42 of 1962; Assignment Deed dated 06.10.1997 executed by the Petitioner's father in favour of R3 to R16 in respect of suit schedule property; final decree in I.A. No. 854 of 1984 in O.S. No. 42 of 1962 dated 07.07.2005 etc. The learned Senior Civil Judge - cum -Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Ranga Reddy District, by the order impugned held that in the final decree proceedings in I.A. No. 854 of 1984, the Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were brought on record as legal representatives of late Hashim Ali Khan and, thus, she is a party to the final decree proceedings in I.A. No. 854 of 1984 and is aware of all the proceedings in I.A. No. 854 of 1984 and assignment of the suit schedule property in favour of Respondent Nos. 3 to 16 therein vide final decree dated 07.07.2005 and no appeal is preferred against the said final decree proceedings or assignment proceedings in I.A. No. 479 of 1999 and they became final and binding on the parties concerned and the principles of res judicata as enunciated in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure also applies to the present case and thus the Petitioner has not made out any prima facie case to institute a second Suit for partition of the property and she is not entitled to legal aid as sought and, therefore, rejected the petition. Questioning the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.