PATHLAVATH BICHYA Vs. V HANYA NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two civil revision petitions arise out of the orders of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar, dated 15-12-2010 in I.A. Nos. 451 and 452 of 2010.

(2.) Revision petitioners 1 and 2 filed O.S. No. 219 of 2008 without naming any defendant and suing 'all concerned' as defendants to declare them as the legal heirs of late Pathlavath Rashya and Pathlavath Bhimji claiming to be the sons of Bhimji. They claimed Rashya to have been granted a certificate of ownership under Section 38E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 in respect of Ac. 28.27 guntas of Kondakal village, Shankarapally Gram Panchayat, Ranga Reddy District. Bhimji and Humla are claimed to be the sons of Rashya who died on 18-09-1989 intestate and Humla is stated to have died a bachelor, while Bhimji died on 02-09-1998. On the advice of Tahsildar, Shankarapally to obtain a succession certificate- from a competent Court, revision petitioners 1 and 2 claimed to have filed the suit.

(3.) The suit was disposed of by the judgment of the trial Court on 06-04-2009, in which it referred to ordering a paper publication in Eenadu (Telugu) district edition of Mahabubnagar, dated 31-12-2008 calling for objections from 'all concerned' and receiving no objections from any quarter. The trial Court received the affidavit of the 2nd plaintiff in lieu of his chief-examination and marked Exs. A.1 to A.5 and after hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, it considered the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit and the entitlement of revision petitioners 1 and 2 herein to be declared as the legal heirs of Rashya and Bhimji. Relying on Madanamma v. Singareni Collieries, 1995 3 ALT 106 the trial Court felt the suit to be maintainable and it also referred to Syed Sadak Ali Khan others v. M/s. Deepthi Builders and others, 2007 6 ALT 4 for concluding that the residence of the plaintiffs at Shadnagar makes them entitled to present the suit before the trial Court. Referring to the death certificates of Rashya and Bhimji in Exs. A.1 and A.2, the ration cards of the plaintiffs in Exs. A.4 and A.5 and the reference therein to the plaintiffs being the sons of Bhimji, the trial Court considered that it was categorically established that the plaintiffs and Pathlavath Rupli, wife of Bhimji, if alive, are to be declared as the legal heirs of Bhimji.