RAJENDRA SHANKER CHOUDHARY Vs. SHAM MOHAN SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Civil Revision Petitions arise out of a common order dt. 17-1-1990 passed by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad rejecting the application filed by the petitioner and allowing the application filed by the respondent seeking to bring him on record as the legal representative of the deceased appellant in R.A.No.165 of 1988. R.A.No.165 of 1988 was filed by the deceased Janaki Devi questioning the order passed by the Rent Controller in R.C.No.267 of 1983 dismissing the Eviction Petition filed by her. During the pendency of the appeal, the said Janaki Devi died. Thereupon, the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.108 of 1989 to bring himself on record as the legal representative of the deceased-appellant on the ground that the appellant died intestate and that the petitioner is the nearest legal heir entitled to come on record as the legal representative of the deceased-appellant. The respondents herein inturn filed I. A.No.135 of 1989 claiming that the deceased-appellant left a Will dated 17-1-1972 bequeathing some of the properties including the suit premises in his favour and accordingly he is entitled to be brought on record as the legal representative of the deceased-appellant. The petitioner disputed the truth and validity of the alleged will set up by the respondent. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by either party. After hearing the arguments of both parties, the lower Court by the impugned order allowed the application filled by the respondent herein and rejected the application filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed these two revision petitions.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order is illegal and without jurisdiction in view of sub-rule 3 of Rule 19 of the Andhra Pradesh Rent Control Rules which provides that where question arises as to whether any person is or is not the legal representative of a deceased person, such question shall be referred to a civil Court for determination. It is also contended that when the alleged Will set up by the respondent is disputed, the lower Court acted illegally and with material irregularity in recognising the respondent herein as the legal representative of the deceased-appellant without any proof of the validity and due execution of the Will as required by law.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the respondent however contends that the Will in question is a registered Will and as the same was not seriously contested, the lower Court was justified in allowing the application filed by the respondent. In any case he prays for giving the respondent an opportunity to adduce evidence in proof of the said Will.