P RAMACHANDRA REDDY Vs. MUNNA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the appellant in S.A. No.980/2002 filed the present Review application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure to review the judgment and decree made in the aforesaid Second Appeal.

(2.) Heard Sri A. Sudershan Reddy and Sri R. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, the respective Counsel representing the parties.

(3.) Sri Sudershan Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the Review petitioner -mainly concentrated on the aspect that the defendants failed to establish that Kalika Pershad expired after 17-6-1956 and in view of. the same there is no question of the female heirs succeeding to the estate of the deceased father. The learned Counsel in elaboration had pointed out the findings recorded in this regard in the Second Appeal and would contend that in the light of Para 5-A which was introduced in the original plaint by filing of amendment certain findings had been recorded but that would not operate as estoppel and on a question of law there cannot be any estoppel of any kind whatsoever and hence in the absence of disclosure of the date of death of Kalika Pershad the findings recorded by this Court in the Second Appeal cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the burden of proof relating to the date of opening of the succession will be on the female heirs who claimed share in the estate of the deceased father. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the rule of succession is a public policy and inheritance does not depend on the will of the individual owner and inheritance is a rule laid down by the State not merely for the benefit of the individual but for the reasons of public policy and hence of the findings recorded in this regard cannot be sustained and the same are to be reviewed. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions in this regard.