CHUNDURI ANJANA DEVI Vs. BEJAWADA SURYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEJAWADACHENCHURAMAMMA filed O.S.No.61 of 1991 in the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole against her husband, the respondent herein, claiming maintenance. It appears that the trial Court awarded maintenance and not satisfied with that, she filed A.S.No.126 of 1994 in the Court of District Judge, Ongole. The amount of maintenance was enhanced. Chenchuramamma filed E.P.No.515 of 2000 for execution of the decree. She sought for arrest of the respondent. During the pendency of the E.P., Chenchuramamma died. The petitioner herein filed E.A.No.736 of 2006 under Order 22 Rule 10 C.P.C. with a prayer to add her as legal representative of Chenchuramamma. She pleaded that during her lifetime, Chenchuramamma executed a will on 29.08.2003 bequeathing all her movable and immovable properties to the petitioner and in that view of the matter, she is entitled to come on record. The application was opposed by the respondent. Through its order, dated 28.06.2010, the executing Court dismissed the E.A. Hence, this revision.

(2.) SRI Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the executing Court was not justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner. He contends that the observation made by the executing Court that there is no clear recital in the will enabling the petitioner to recover the past maintenance is not only contrary to facts, but is also opposed to Section 74 and other relevant provisions of the Indian Succession Act (for short the Act).

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to Section 74 of the Act, which is to the effect that it is not necessary that any technical words or terms of art be used in the will. Other provisions are to the effect that where no specific reference is made to any items, bequest can be treated of the entire property left by the testator.