MURARI Vs. T RAMMOHAN RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed under Section 384 of the Succession Act, 1925, for short the 'Act', against the order in (SC) O.P. No.55/1984 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, dated 20-7-1988 refusing to grant a Succession Certificate in favour of the appellant-petitioner in respect of petition schedule articles.

(2.) The facts in brief are that: One Murari China Punniah and Murari Seethamma of Peddarayuduthota, h/o. Kaza had no issue and hence, the appellant-petitioner was adopted and a registered Adoption Deed was executed on 14-8-1952. The adoptive parents were murdered on 28-1-1977 in their house at Peddarayuduthota and in that connection a case in Crime No.7/1977 of P.S. Kuchipudi was registered and it culminated into a Sessions Case viz., S.C. No.33/1977 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Krishna. It was disposed of on 30-8-1977. The case property consisting of gold ornaments in that case was marked as M.Os. 19 to 24, 29 and 42 and they were ordered to be returned to the legal heirs of Murari Seethamma, adoptive mother. The appellant-petitioner sought for return of the same in Criminal M.P. No.115/1984 and he was directed by the Court to produce a Succession Certificate. Accordingly the appellant- petitioner applied for a Succession Certificate under Section 372 of the Act.

(3.) A general notice inviting objections, if any, was issued and the same was affixed on the Notice Board of the Court and also at a prominent place in the village. It was also published in a Telugu daily Andhra Jyoti. The respondents herein got themselves impleaded as per order in I.A. No.560/1984, dated 22-10-1984 and they filed a counter resisting the petition. It is denied that the petitioner is the adopted son of Murari China Punniah and Seethamma. It is asserted that the alleged Adoption Deed is a fictitious document and it was never acted upon. Their case is that one Tata Punnamma became the legal heir of Murari Punniah and Seethamma and that she is mother of respondent No.2 and wife of respondent No.1 and she executed a Will in favour of the respondents. Thus, respondents 1 and 2 have set up a claim for the aforesaid gold ornaments of Seethamma.