VUSIKALA KANAKA LAXMI Vs. VUSHIKALA YELLAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second respondent in O.P. No.876 of 1994 on the file of the District Judge, Khammam, had preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal. Respondent herein filed O.P. No.876 of 1994 on the file of the District Judge, Khammam, under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to in short as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience) claiming herself as the mother of the deceased Veeraswamy praying for issuance of Succession Certificate for the death benefits payable on account of the death of Veeraswamy. The learned Judge recorded the evidence of P.Ws.l and 2, R.Ws.l to 5, marked Exs.A-1 to A-9, Exs.B-1 to B-16 and also Exs.Xl to X-4 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the respondent herein, the petitioner in the O.P., to be paid half of the amount as per the Succession Certificate already issued and the appellant herein, the second respondent in the O.P., to establish her claim as legally wedded wife of Veeraswamy within six months by approaching appropriate Court and to get necessary temporary interim orders or final orders from that Court and if she fails to establish or to get any such order, the balance of the amount also shall be paid to the respondent herein, the petitioner in O.P., and in case she gets an order in her favour as legally wedded wife, she was entitled to the other half of the amount.

(2.) Sri P. Prabhakar Rao, learned Counsel representing the appellant would contend that there is clear proof relating to the status of the appellant as wife of the deceased Veeraswamy, whereas, the status of the respondent, as the mother of the deceased Veeraswamy, is highly doubtful. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the oral evidence available on record and would submit that in the light of the same to make such a conditional order in granting Succession Certificate may not be just and proper and it would be appropriate if both the parties are driven to the civil Court or in the alternative there could have a declaration even in favour of the wife and instead recording such findings cannot be sustained.

(3.) Per contra, Sri R. Kameswara Rao, learned Counsel representing the respondent would submit that in fact, Succession Certificate was issued and subsequent thereto the same was reopened by filing an application in I.A.No.1704 of 1995 and the present appellant was impleaded as R-2 in the O.P. and in the light of the clear evidence available on record the status of respondent in the appeal, the petitioner in the O.P., as mother of the deceased Veeraswamy, cannot be doubted.