Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 631 (AP)

Polaki Appa Rao v. Project Officer, ICDA

2005-07-14

P.S.NARAYANA

body2005
JUDGMENT :- Polanki Apparao, the unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S. No. 1 of 1993 on the file of the District Judge, Rajahmundry, had preferred this appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 24-3-1995 made in the aforesaid suit. 2. Said suit was filed for realisation of an amount of Rs 49,956/- with subsequent interest and costs. The claim of the appellant-plaintiff is relating to different benefits due to one Manepalli Suryakantham on the ground that said Suryakantham is his wife. 3. Before the learned District Judge, East Godawari, Rajahmundry, P.Ws.1 to 3 and DWs.1 and 2 were examined. Exs.A.1 to A.19 and Exs.B.1 to B.12 were marked. Ultimately, the learned Judge on appreciation of evidence adduced on either side dismissed the suit without costs. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred. 4. Sri Ramalinga Swamy, the learned Counsel representing the appellant-plaintiff would contend that the status of the plaintiff as husband of Manepalli Suryakantham need not be seriously gone into in the present suit in view of the fact that the appellant-plaintiff had already obtained Succession Certificate. The learned Counsel would also contend that the brother of said Suryakantham, who was impleaded as a party in the Succession Certificate proceedings had in fact raised the dispute, and hence, respondents-defendants now cannot raise an objection stating that the present suit cannot be decreed in view of some correspondence in between the brother of Suryakantham and the officers concerned. The learned Counsel had also drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (in short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and would contend that in the absence of any revocation of the Succession Certificate, the Project Officer, ICDS, Addateegala and others are bound to make these payments, and they cannot be permitted to take the defence which they had put forth in the present suit. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his stand. 5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for appeals Sri Anandam, would submit that it may be that brother of Suryakantham could have been a party to the Succession Certificate proceedings, but the respondents-defendants in the suit were not parties to those proceedings, and this being a summary proceeding and not being a judgment in rem, it cannot be said that the said decision is binding on these respondents. The learned Counsel also would contend that in the light of Section 387 of the Act, independent findings can be recorded in the present suit, inasmuch as mere obtaining of the Succession Certificate would not operate as res judicata, and since an independent suit is always maintainable in this regard. The learned counsel also would contend that at any rate in the light of the evidence available on record, the findings recorded by the learned Judge need not be disturbed in the present appeal. 6. Heard the learned Counsel on record. 7. For the purpose of convenience, the parties hereinafter would be referred to as plaintiff and defendants as shown in O.S. No. 1 of 1993 on the file of District Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the amount aforesaid and it was averred in the plaint as hereunder : 'The Manepalli Suryakantham, the wife of the plaintiff herein and who worked as a Supervisor in I.C.D.S. died in the year 1985 while working. She was entitled to gratuity, encashment of leave, family pension etc. She was survived by her husband, the plaintiff herein. Except plaintiff, she had no other legal heirs whatsoever. Therefore, the plaintiff is under law, entitled to recover the suit amount. The defendants are holding the amounts due as trustees. The defendants so far paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards group insurance due and Rs. 1489.30 ps towards benefit Fund. Still they have to pay a Family Pension of Rs. 27,618.80ps, gratuity of Rs. 6,490/- and encashment leave of Rs. 710/-. The plaintiff demanded the defendants to pay the aforesaid amounts. In spite of repeated demands they did not pay except making promises to pay. Thereupon the plaintiff also got issued a registered notice dated 3-11-1989 through his Advocate to the defendant calling upon them to repay the suit amount. The defendants received the notice but neither replied nor complied with. Hence, the suit.' 8. The first defendant filed a written statement and defendants 2 to 4 filed a memo of adoption. In the written statement filed by the first defendant, all the allegations were denied, a specific stand was taken that the plaintiff is put to strict proof that the deceased Suryakantham is the legally wedded wife of the plaintiff, and that she died without children and intestate, and that the plaintiff is the only legal heir. In the written statement filed by the first defendant, all the allegations were denied, a specific stand was taken that the plaintiff is put to strict proof that the deceased Suryakantham is the legally wedded wife of the plaintiff, and that she died without children and intestate, and that the plaintiff is the only legal heir. It was further pleaded in the written statement as hereunder : 'It is submitted an amount of Rs. 1489-30ps. towards Familhy Benefit Fund and Rs. 20,000/- towards Insurance Fund, Rs. 42/- towards saving fund and also Rs. 500/- towards funeral charges were already paid. It is submitted the Gratuity and Family Pension are to be sanctioned by the Accountant General, A.P., Hyderabad, for which the Legal heirs of the deceased employee have to submit relevant papers to the office of this defendant in the Prescribed Pro forma in quadruplicate duly filled in Part I pension papers so as to enable this office to transmit the same proposals in turn to the Accountant General, A.P., Hyderabad along with service Register of the deceased employee. But there is no such papers have been received so far in this matter.' It is also submitted that encashment of leave, the leave sanctioning authority is the 3rd defendant. With regard to this matter, the legal heirs of the deceased employee have put a separate application as contemplated under A.P. Leave Rules for sanction of leave at the credit of the deceased employee. But there is no separate (sic) was sent to this office by the legal heirs of the deceased so far. This defendant humbly submits that there are several latches and lapses on the part of the legal heirs of the deceased employee in submitting relevant papers as prescribed under the various rules so as to transmit the same by this defendant to the different competent authorities as stated supra for obtaining specific sanction of Gratuity and Family Pension and encashment of leave paving the way of payment of due amounts to the legal heirs of the deceased employees by this defendant. It is further submitted that this defendant is always ready to transmit the papers concerning the payment of due amounts of the deceased employee to her legal heirs after obtaining the specific sanctions as and when received the relevant papers stated above from the legal heirs. It is further submitted that this defendant is always ready to transmit the papers concerning the payment of due amounts of the deceased employee to her legal heirs after obtaining the specific sanctions as and when received the relevant papers stated above from the legal heirs. The delay is entirely on the part of the legal heirs in filing the abovesaid papers and therefore, the question of the payment of dues is wrongly withheld does not arise and hence the payment of interest on the amount due also does not arise in view of the inaction, indiffernece, gross negligence on the part of the legal heirs of the deceased employee in not submitting the papers in the prescribed form till so far.' 9. On the strength of the pleadings, the following issues were settled before the trial Court : '1. Whether the family benefit fund, insurance fund, saving fund, and funeral expenses are paid already to the plaintiff, as contended by the defendant? 2. Whether the delay in payment of other amounts claimed by the plaintiff was on account of the laches on the part of the legal heirs of M. Suryakantham? 3. To what relief? 10. On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself was examined as P.W.1, P.Ws.2 and 3 also were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.19 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, DWs.1 and 2 were examined, and Exs.B.1 to B.12 were marked. 11. In the light of the respective pleadings of the parties, the evidence available on record, and the findings recorded by the trial Court on the submission made by both the counsel, the following points arise for consideration in this appeal : '1. Whether the appellant-plaintiff is entitled for the relief prayed for in the suit i.e., the recovery of an amount of Rs. 49,956/- with subsequent interest and costs of the suit? 2. If so, to what relief the parties are entitled to?' 12. Point No. 1 : The respective pleadings of the parties already had been referred to supra. No doubt, both the parties had let in oral evidence also. Apart from the oral evidence, Exs.A.1 to A.19 and Exs.B.1 to B.12 also were relied upon by respective parties. 2. If so, to what relief the parties are entitled to?' 12. Point No. 1 : The respective pleadings of the parties already had been referred to supra. No doubt, both the parties had let in oral evidence also. Apart from the oral evidence, Exs.A.1 to A.19 and Exs.B.1 to B.12 also were relied upon by respective parties. The specific stand taken by the defendants is that the plaintiff is not the legal heir of Suryakantham at all, and inasmuch as these parties were not parties to the Succession Certificate proceeding, which has been obtained, they are not bound by the same. It is also not in serious controversy that Ex.A.15-Succession Certificate had not been revoked. The main grievance of the plaintiff is that even after the production of Ex.A.15-Succession Certificate, the balance amount was not paid to him, and in view of the stand taken by the defendants, the present suit was filed. A finding had been recorded that the plaintiff has another legally wedded wife by name Koteswari and in two OPs viz., O.P. No. 356 of 1986 and O.P. No. 166 of 1991, the plaintiff obtained Succession Certificates. It is true that the defendants were not parties to those proceedings, but it is pertinent to note that as can be seen from the cause title, the brother of Suryakantham was impleaded as a party. The learned Judge in this suit recorded a finding that in view of the objection raised by him, the amounts were not disbursed in favour of the plaintiff. The learned Judge pointed out several suspicious circumstances by virtue of which the status of the plaintiff as husband of Suryakantham was found doubtful. In Exs.A.5 to A.7, the plaintiff is shown as husband of Suryakantham. The caste factor also had been regarded as a ground. Ex.A.8 is the letter obtained from Pratibha Nursing Home, Rajahmundry, wherein the plaintiff's name was mentioned as husband of late Suryakantham. Ex.A.9 is the letter written by plaintiff to Suryakantham on the address of her brother in Vizag. Ex.A.10 is the letter written by the brother of Suryakantham, wherein the brother of Suryakantham had addressed the plaintiff as brother-in-law. In Exs.A.2 also, the brother of Suryakantham referred to the plaintiff as brother-in-law. The other documents Ex.A.11, A.13, A.14, A.16 to A.19 and also Ex.A.1 to A.4 had been discussed apart from the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. Ex.A.10 is the letter written by the brother of Suryakantham, wherein the brother of Suryakantham had addressed the plaintiff as brother-in-law. In Exs.A.2 also, the brother of Suryakantham referred to the plaintiff as brother-in-law. The other documents Ex.A.11, A.13, A.14, A.16 to A.19 and also Ex.A.1 to A.4 had been discussed apart from the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. As against these witnesses, DW.1, who was trained at Gandhi-gram at Madras along with Suryakantham, had been examined. She deposed that herself and deceased Suryakantham had not given any nomination papers. But, however, in cross-examination, she deposed that it is true that P.W.1 and Suryakantham lived as husband and wife at that place also. D.W.2, the Superintendent in Regional Deputy Director of Women Welfare, Eluru, at the relevant point of time, was examined. He deposed that deceased Syryakantham has no husband or children, and Exs.B.2 is her service register. This witness narrated the details and deposed that P.W.1 is not the husband of the deceased, and that he is an employee in APSRTC as conductor, and that he has his own family and major children. This witness had also deposed that in Ex.B.3, the deceased Suryakantham had given her brother's address for communication as leave address. The telegram was marked as Ex.B.4, and Ex.B.5 is the letter written by P.W.1 claiming funeral charges. Ex.B.6 is the doctor certificate wherein Suryakantham was described as wife of late Achyutharamayya. Ex.B7 is the legal heir certificate issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Narsipatnam. This witness also deposed that the brother of Suryakantham had also written letter under Ex.B.8 claiming monetary benefits due to the death of his sister. This witness also deposed that in earlier OP under which P.W.1 obtained Succession Certificate, the department was not a party. Based on the said Succession Certificate, they paid Rs. 20,000/- towards group insurance and Rs. 1489-35ps towards family benefit fund. Subsequent thereto, P.W.1 demanded for arrears with interest, and they did not pay the said amount as they are investigating into the matter and contemplating to recover the amounts already paid to the plaintiff and also to prosecute P.W.1 for wrongful gain. In cross-examination, this witness deposed that Lakshmana Sastry is the real brother of the deceased Suryakantham and in Ex.B.8, they directed him to produce the Succession Certificate. In cross-examination, this witness deposed that Lakshmana Sastry is the real brother of the deceased Suryakantham and in Ex.B.8, they directed him to produce the Succession Certificate. Even in Ex.B.9, they directed her brother to obtain Succession Certificate but he did not produce any Succession Certificate. This witness was cross-examined at length. The other documentary evidence Exs.B1, B.11, B.12, also had been taken into consideration. On the overall appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the clear picture, which emerges is that the plaintiff had already obtained Succession Certificate and realized certain amounts. When demand was made for the other amounts, certain objections had been taken and in the light of the same, the present suit was instituted. 13. Part X of the Act deals with the Succession Certificates and Section 372 deals with application for certificate. Section 373 envisages Procedure on application. Section 374 deals with Contents of certificate.Section 381 deals with effect of certificate, which reads as hereunder : 'Subject to the provisions of this part, the certificate of the District Judge shall, with respect to the debts and securities specified therein, be conclusive as against the persons owing such debts or liable on such securities, and shall, notwithstanding any contravention of Section 370, or other defect, afford full indemnity to all such persons as regards all payments made, or dealings had, in good faith in respect of such debts or securities to or with the person to whom the certificate was granted.' Section 383 dealing with revocation of certificate specifies as hereunder : 'A certificate granted under this part may be revoked for any of the following causes, namely :- (a) that the proceedings to obtain the certificate were defective in substance; (b) that the certificate was obtained fraudulently by the making of a false suggestion, or by the concealment from the Court of something material to the case; (c) that the certificate was obtained by means of an untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant thereof, though such allegation was made in an ignorance or inadvertently; (d) that the certificate has become useless and inoperative through circumstances; (e) that a decree or order made by a competent Court in a suit or other proceeding with respect to effects comprisng debts or securities specified in the certificate renders it proper that the certificate should be revoked.' 14. It is true that the Government was not shown as a party in the succession certificate proceedings, but the real objector i.e., the brother who would be otherwise, the legal heir in the absence of any marital status of Suryakantham had been impleaded as a party. When such party was unsuccessful in the succession certificate proceedings such objection cannot be raised and on such correspondence made by such unsuccessful party, the objection raised by the Government cannot be sustained. Ultimately, the finding recorded by the learned Judge on the strength of the same also cannot be sustained. 15. It is also not in serious controversy that the Certificate aforesaid had not been revoked either by the Government or any other affected party including the brother who also had put-forth his claim for the monetary benefits. The learned counsel placed reliance on Shev Shetty v. Jamna Bai, AIR 1956 Hyd 59 wherein it was held that, "The purpose of grant of a Succession Certificate is to give a valid discharge of the debt, if paid, by the debtor to the person in whose favour the certificate has been granted. The debtor has no right to say that as between two heirs one is a preferential heir as against the other." 16. Reliance also was placed on B. Anjanaiah v. Nagappa, AIR 1967 Andh Pra 61, wherein the learned Judge while dealing with Sections 381, 383, 384 and 387 of the Act held as under (Para 4) : 'The first point that falls for consideration is whether the plaintiff has a right of action for the recovery of the suit amount. As stated earlier, the plaintiff has filed the suit on the basis of a Succession Certificate issued to him. Under Section 381 of the Indian Succession Act, such certificate would be conclusive as against the persons owing such debts or liable on such securities. But the grant of certificate can be revoked as provided under Section 383 of the said Act on the grounds stated therein. Under Section 384 of the said Act, a right of appeal is also provided. It follows, therefore, that the Act is a self-contained Act and makes ample provision for the aggrieved persons, who were either parties to it or were not parties. Admittedly the defendant was not a party to the O.P. proceedings; but it cannot be denied that he had notice of the proceedings. It follows, therefore, that the Act is a self-contained Act and makes ample provision for the aggrieved persons, who were either parties to it or were not parties. Admittedly the defendant was not a party to the O.P. proceedings; but it cannot be denied that he had notice of the proceedings. On his own admission in the written statement, he filed I. A. No. 672/59 to implead him as a respondent; but that application was dismissed. He also filed another application in the same O. P. to implead Mallamma, which was also dismissed. But he did not get those orders revised and it is also his admitted case that he did not apply for revocation of the certificate under Section 383 of the Act. The appellant therefore, cannot challenge the right of the plaintiff to sue. My attention is drawn to Section 387 of the Act and contended that grant of a certificate would not defer the Court from going into the question. Section 387 reads : "No decision under this Part upon any question of right between any parties shall be held to bar the trial of the same question in any suit or in any other proceeding between the same parties, and nothing in this part shall be construed to affect the liability of any person who may receive the whole or any part of any debt or security or any interest or dividend on any security, to account therefore to the person lawfully entitled thereto." It is no doubt true that, under the above provision, any decision given earlier is not resj udicata; but the point is not whether it is res judicata, but who, under the Act, would be entitled to recover the debt. As stated earlier, it will only be the person to whom the certificate has been granted. It may also be stated at this stage that the grant of a Succession Certificate does not decide the question of title of any person. If a person has any right, the grant of a certificate or any decision given under Sections 383 and 384 would not be a bar to him to establish his right.' 17. It is no doubt true that the nature of these proceedings being summary, only for the purpose of giving valid discharge, normally these Succession Certificates would be obtained. If a person has any right, the grant of a certificate or any decision given under Sections 383 and 384 would not be a bar to him to establish his right.' 17. It is no doubt true that the nature of these proceedings being summary, only for the purpose of giving valid discharge, normally these Succession Certificates would be obtained. It is also true that it would not operate as a bar for the institution of a regular independent suit for the purpose of agitating the rights or title relating to the subject matter of such certificate. However, in the present set of facts, the other alleged heirs of Suryakantham had not made any such attempt to get the Succession Certificate revoked nor the Government had made any such attempt. When that being the position, the learned Judge by recording certain suspicious circumstances, cannot negative the relief and dismiss the suit. The said findings recorded by the learned Judge, in the considered opinion of this Court, are not in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court is not concerned with the other extraneous aspects in the light of Ex. A. 15. 18. Point No. 2 : In view of the findings recorded above, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant-plaintif is bound to succeed, and accordingly, the appeal to be allowed. However, it is made clear that the appellant-plaintiff is entitled to an amount of Rs. 49,956/- only, and in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to make any order relating to the interest or costs. 19. Thus, appeal is hereby partly allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.