PRATAPA SEETHARAMA Vs. SEETHEPALLI KUTUMBAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants filed O.S. No. 148 of 2008 in the Court of VII Additional District & Sessions judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada against the respondents, for the relief of declaration, to the effect that the respondents 1 to 3 have no right to question the disposition made by Sri Pratapa Sitarama Sastry, under a Will dated 05-05-2007, and that the withholding of the amounts and settlements by respondents 4 and 5, for want of succession certificate, or consent from respondents 1 to 3, is illegal and untenable. It was pleaded by the appellants that they are the close relations of one Sri Sitarama Sastry, who was employed in Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, and was having properties at the native place at Vatluru and Nagavarapadu Village of Krishna District, and Bangalore, in the State of Karnataka, apart from having balance in Bank accounts, and some articles in lockers, in the respondents 4 and 5 - Banks. His wife is said to have predeceased him. It was the case of the appellants that Sitarama Sastry did not have any children, and that he executed a Will on 05-05-2007, at Bangalore, and died on 09-05-2007. They pleaded that after the completion of the ceremonies of the deceased, Sitarama Sastry, they presented a claim application before the respondents 4 and 5 for release of benefits in their favour, in terms of the Will, but the latter refused to accede to the request, on the ground that the 3rd respondent is objecting to the same. Their further case was that though Sitarama Sastry hails from Seethepalli family, and he is the brother of respondents 1 to 3, he was taken in adoption by their uncle, Sri Pratapa Venkata Ramaiah.

(2.) The appellants further pleaded that when the respondents 4 and 5 did not accede to the request, they approached the District Legal Services Authority, Elur, with a pre-litigation case, taken on record as PLC No. 605 of 2007, and a view was expressed at the Lok Adalat, that the Will needs to be enforced, and that there was no opposition to it. Their grievance was that in spite of the award being passed by the Lok Adalat, the respondents 4 and 5 did not react.

(3.) The respondents 1 to 3 and 6 remained ex parte in the suit. Respondents 4 and 5 filed a written-statement. They expressed some doubt as to the genuinity of the Will. It was also stated that a letter of objection was received from the 3rd respondent.