Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1301 (AP)

G. Buddanna v. B. Subbarayudu

2004-11-04

B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

body2004
B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 05-04-2004 passed in O. S. No. 581 of 2003 by the principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool. ( 2 ) THE petitioners are the plaintiffs in o. S. No. 581 of 2002. Initially, the suit was filed by the deceased plaintiff viz. , g. Buddanna against the respondent- defendant for recovery of money basing on a promissory note dated 04-04-2000. During pendency of the suit, the first plaintiff died and his legal Representatives came on record, as plaintiffs 2 to 5, as per the orders in I. A. No. 2305 of 2002, dated 04-04-2003. The defendant-respondent filed his written statement. The trial Court settled the following issues for trial. (1) Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant? (2) Whether the defendant repaid the amount at Rs. 1,000/- per month? (3) Whether the defendant paid rs. 12,2000/- in April, 2002 towards full settlement? (4) To what relief? ( 3 ) ON behalf of the plaintiff, 5th plaintiff was examined as P. W. 1, and 3 documents were marked as Exs. A-1 to A-3. On behalf of the defendant, no witness was examined, but 18 documents were marked as Exs. B-1 to B-18. The leaned Junior Civil Judge, on considering the material on record and on hearing the counsel for both parties, disposed of the suit declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to obtain decree only on production of succession certificate as required under Section 214 of the Indian succession Act. Aggrieved by the direction given by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, kurnool, the plaintiffs filed this Civil Revision petition. ( 4 ) THE respondent-defendant, despite receiving the notice did not choose to enter appearance either in person or through a counsel. ( 5 ) IT is not in dispute that the deceased first plaintiff filed the suit against the respondent-defendant for recovery of money basing on a promissory note executed by the respondent-defendant for Rs. 20,000/ -. Pending trial, the deceased first plaintiff died and his Legal Representatives, who are no other than his wife and children came on record as plaintiffs 2 to 5 as per the orders in i. A. No. 2305 of 2002, dated 4-4-2003. 20,000/ -. Pending trial, the deceased first plaintiff died and his Legal Representatives, who are no other than his wife and children came on record as plaintiffs 2 to 5 as per the orders in i. A. No. 2305 of 2002, dated 4-4-2003. In such a case whether the Legal representatives of the deceased first plaintiff are required to produce Succession certificate to claim the suit amount. This issue is squarely covered by the judgment of our High Court in S. Satish Traders v. Anisetti Anjaneyulu, wherein it has been held that"coming to the merits of the case, it is not in dispute that one Mr. Kolla venkatarayudu, son of second petitioner, husband of third petitioner and father of fourth to seventh petitioners, filed a small cause suit for recovery of the monies on the basis of the Kaatha account. During the pendency of the suit Kolla venkatarayudu died on 24-02-1998 and all the petitioners got themselves impleaded as Legal Representatives of him. Therefore the Court below has taken up the trial and decreed the suit. But, unfortunately, at the end of the judgment, it observed that the petitioners have to obtain succession certificate from the competent authority to get the decree executed. When the suit was tried in the presence of the legal Representatives of late Sri Kolla venkatarayudu and in the presence of the defendant, who owes monies to kolla Venkatarayudu and no other person has set up any adverse interests to that of the petitioners herein for the suit claim, the Court has no option except to treat them as Legal representatives of said venkatarayudu. When the Court recognizes them as Legal representatives of Late Sri Kolla venkatarayudu, the question of obtaining any succession certificate, as directed by it, does not arise. The directions of the Court below to the extent of directing the petitioners to obtain succession certificate are set aside and the rest of the judgment stands good. It is open to the petitioners to execute the decree now. " ( 6 ) COMING to the facts of the case on hand, the deceased first plaintiff filed the suit against the respondent-defendant for recovery of money, basing on a promissory note executed by the respondent-defendant on 4-4-2000. The deceased first plaintiff died, his Legal Representatives came on record, as plaintiffs 2 to 5. " ( 6 ) COMING to the facts of the case on hand, the deceased first plaintiff filed the suit against the respondent-defendant for recovery of money, basing on a promissory note executed by the respondent-defendant on 4-4-2000. The deceased first plaintiff died, his Legal Representatives came on record, as plaintiffs 2 to 5. When the suit was tried in the presence of the Legal representatives of the deceased first plaintiff, and in the presence of the respondent-defendant, who owes money to the deceased first plaintiff, and no othpr person has set up any adverse interests to that of the petitioners herein for the suit claim, the Court has no option except to treat them as Legal Representatives of the deceased first plaintiff (G. Buddanna ). When the Court recognizes the petitioners 2 to 5 as legal Representatives of the deceased first plaintiff, the question of obtaining any succession certificate, as directed by it, does not arise. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, the direction given by principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool in o. S. No. 581 of 2002, to obtain succession certificate is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to pass the decree accordingly. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, with the above observation, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed.