MASTER A SRIDHAR Vs. A ADIVARALAXML

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This C.R.P. is filed against the Order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, in I.A.No. 557/1995 in O.P.No. 968/1992. O.P. No. 968/1992 is a petition filed by the 1st respondent herein for grant of succession certificate in her favour. Another suit was filed in the year 1992 by the respondents for declaration of the status of the respondents as legally wedded wife and daughter of late Narayana Rao respectively and for partition and separate possession of the properties of late Narayan Rao. The said suit was transferred to the Court of the Additional Chief Judge and on such transfer, the suit was assigned the number O.S.No. 224/1994. However, the said suit was made over to the Family Court, Hyderabad after the Family Courts Act was brought into force in the city of Hyderabad. The said suit is pending in the Family Court. While so, the respondent in the O.P. (Petitioner here in) who is the son of late Sri Narayana Rao filed an I. A. under Section 151 C.P.C. praying the Court of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, not to proceed with the enquiry in O.P.No. 968/1992, pending decision in the suit transferred to the Family Court. That application having been rejected, the present C.R.P. is filed.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the two proceedings are inter-connected and if any order is granted in favour of the petitioner in O.P.No. 968/1992 (1st respondent herein), it would result in conflict of decisions if the suit filed by the respondents herein is ultimately dismissed by the Family Court. As the question whether the 1st respondent is the legally wedded wife is directly in issue in the suit, it is just and proper to stay the proceedings in O.P. No. 968 /1992 till that issue is decided in the suit inasmuch as the decision in the suit as regards the relationship and status of the respondents will have binding effect on the parties. It is pointed out that the O.P. cannot be transferred to the Family Court and, therefore, the only way to avoid conflict of decisions and to safeguard the interests of the petitioner is to keep the proceedings in O.P.No.968/1992 in abeyance pending disposal of the aforementioned suit.

(3.) The learned Additional Chief Judge pointed out that the grant of succession certificate does not establish the title of the grantee but only invests him or her with an authority to collect the debts mentioned in the petition- schedule. It is also pointed out that as per Section 387 of the Indian Succession Act, the proceedings being of a summary nature and the decision of the Court as to inter se relationship between the parties is in no way final or binding it does not bar the trial of the same question in the suit.