JUDGMENT : The present Appeal arises against the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2011 in A.S.No.132 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District reversing the decree or order dated 21.06.2010 passed in S.O.P. No.13 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole. 2. A perusal of the record shows that the 1st respondent herein filed SOP No.13 of 2006 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole seeking for granting succession certificate in favour of the petitioner empowering him to receive Rs.50,000/- being his 1/4th share of the total amount mentioned in the petition schedule and for costs and the same was dismissed with costs. Being not satisfied with the same, he preferred A.S.No.132 of 2010 before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole and the same was allowed vide judgment dated 7.09.2011 setting aside the order and decree in SOP No.13 of 2006 dated 21.6.2010 on the file of lower Court holding that the petitioner is entitled to 1/4th share, respondents No.1 and 2 are entitled to 1/4th share, respondent No.3 to 5 are entitled to 1/4th share and 6th respondent is entitled to 1/4th share out of the amount of late Janikamma lying with the 7th respondent and also they are entitled to receive the same from the 7th respondent. Challenging the same, the 8th respondent in AS No.132 of 2010 i.e., the appellant herein has preferred the present CMSA. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in AS. Brief facts of the case are that Late Dandu Jankamma is the legally wedded wife of Late Dandu Seetharami Reddy, who is the 1st respondent, and they have not any issue. Therefore, the said Seetharami Reddy married one Late Seshamma as per Hindu Sastras and gave birth to three sons and one daughter namely (1) Dandu Venkateswara Reddy (2) Ramachandra Reddy (3) Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy and Seetharavamma, who is the 6th respondent. Later, Seetharami Reddy died intestate in the year 1951. His third son Vijay Bhaskar Reddy died leaving behind his wife and daughters, who are respondents No.4 and 5. Seetharami Reddy’s second wife Seshamma also died. Seetharami Reddy’s second son Rama Chandra Reddy also died leaving behind respondents No.1 and 2. Later, Seetharami Reddy died intestate in the year 1951. His third son Vijay Bhaskar Reddy died leaving behind his wife and daughters, who are respondents No.4 and 5. Seetharami Reddy’s second wife Seshamma also died. Seetharami Reddy’s second son Rama Chandra Reddy also died leaving behind respondents No.1 and 2. Thus the appellant and respondents 1 to 6 are the legal heirs of Seetharami Reddy. Late Janikamma being the first wife of Seetharami Reddy lived separately from him and received maintenance from her husband. She had two Vikas Cash Certificates of Rs.50,000/- each. The 7th respondent is the Branch Manager of the said Bank. Janikamma died intestate on 4.4.2000 leaving behind the appellant and respondents No.1 to 6 as her legal heirs as per Hindu Succession Act to succeed to her amounts. While things stood thus, the 8th respondent, who is the appellant herein has issued notice to the 7th respondent Bank claiming for payment of the entire deposit amount on the ground that he is the sole legal heir of his father Balarami Reddy, who was nominated by Janikamma. It is stated that as per law, legal heirs of Late Janikamma are entitled to receive the said amounts lying with the 7th respondent. Neither the nominee nor his legal heirs are entitled to the said amounts. 4. The 7th respondent has filed counter stating that it will pay as per the directions of the Court subject to the production of necessary documents by the persons entitled to receive the amount. The C.D file by the 8th respondent was dismissed on 27.7.2006. 5. The 8th respondent has also filed counter admitting that late Dandu Janikamma married late Seetharami Reddy and her relationship with the appellant and respondents No.1 to 6. He also stated that the said Janikamma had no issues because of which Seetharami Reddy married one Seshamma as second wife and later she died intestate. Janikamma separated from husband after he married Seshamma. Janikamma lived with Dandu Balaramireddy till her death. This respondent Balaramireddy and Janikamma lived as wife and husband in one house at Korisapadu village and he looked after Janikamma. After the death of Seetharami Reddy, Janikamma filed suit in the year 1958 for partition of the properties and the same was compromised and Janikamma relinquished her rights over the properties on payment of an amount of Rs.4,000/- towards full and final settlement. After the death of Seetharami Reddy, Janikamma filed suit in the year 1958 for partition of the properties and the same was compromised and Janikamma relinquished her rights over the properties on payment of an amount of Rs.4,000/- towards full and final settlement. Janikamma died leaving Balaramireddy as her nominee. Subsequently the said Balaramireddy also died leaving Srimanarayana, the 8th respondent i.e., appellant herein as his legal heir. Therefore, he is alone entitled to receive the schedule amounts. 6. During the course trial, on behalf of the appellant therein he himself and the Branch Manager as PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were also marked on their behalf. On behalf of the respondents, the 8th respondent was examined as RW.1 and no documents were marked on his behalf. 7. After considering oral and documentary evidence and on considering the submissions of both sides, the first appellate Court was allowed the A.S. Challenging the same, the 8th respondent has preferred the present CMSA. 8. Heard Sri I.Koti Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri T. Lakshmi Narayana and Sri M. Shiva Kumar, learned counsels for the respondents. 9. During hearing, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court is erroneous and against law and probabilities of the case. He further submitted that the appellate Court ought to have held that the appellant herein entitled to receive the schedule amounts as the appellant was left behind Sri Balarami Reddy i.e., who purchased the schedule amounts (cash certificate) in the name of Janikamma being her husband. He further submitted that the appellate Court ought to have noticed that late Janikamma filed suit, after demise of her first husband Dandu Seetharami Reddy against the 1st respondent herein and his brothers for partition of the properties of Seetharamireddy and subsequently the suit was compromised and Janikamma relinquished all her rights over the properties on payment of Rs.4,000/- towards full and final settlement. He also submitted that the appellate Court ought to have believed that Janikamma by her death was not having any relationship of whatsoever with the respondents. Hence the appellate Court have erred in holding that the schedule amounts are inherited by Janikamma from her parents or husband in the absence of any evidence. 10. He also submitted that the appellate Court ought to have believed that Janikamma by her death was not having any relationship of whatsoever with the respondents. Hence the appellate Court have erred in holding that the schedule amounts are inherited by Janikamma from her parents or husband in the absence of any evidence. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon a catena of decisions of different High Courts i.e., (i) Patna High Court reported in Mosamatt Parmeshwari Devi and another v. Geeta Devi and other, AIR 2001 PATN 107, (ii) Nagpur High court reported in Bisesar Sheodayal soonar vs Jairam Bariyar Soonar, AIR 1940 NAGPUR 162 , (iii) another case reported in Manohar son of Bapurao Sapre v. Bhaurao son of Tukaramji Shirbhate and another, AIR 1996 BOMBAY 29, and (iv) in a case of Ms. Bhanwar Bai and others v Balmukund and another, AIR 1960 RAJASTHAN 9and (v) in another case of Doggupati tirupalamma v K.M. Subbamma, AIR 1992 ANDHRA PRADESH 222, wherein, it was held that it is manifest from the provisions of Section 388 (2) and its proviso clause that any inferior Court who has been invested with the power to exercise the function of a District Judge shall within the local limits of its jurisdiction have concurrent jurisdiction with the District Judge in exercise of all the powers conferred by this part upon the District Judge but the proviso clause makes it abundantly clear that where the inferior Court has passed any order under sub-sec(1) of S.384 then the appeal shall lie to the District Judge and not to the High Court. On perusing the above citations, the facts and circumstances of the above cases were materially different and distinguishable with the facts of the present case. 11. This Court observed that as per Section 15(1)(a) the property of a Hindu female dying intestate shall devolve upon her children including the children of pre-deceased children and also her husband. In this case, admittedly late Janikamma had no children and her husband pre-deceased her. So as per Section 15 (1)(b) the property shall devolve upon the heirs of her husband and in the absence of the heirs of husband, it shall devolve upon her mother and father. In this case, admittedly late Janikamma had no children and her husband pre-deceased her. So as per Section 15 (1)(b) the property shall devolve upon the heirs of her husband and in the absence of the heirs of husband, it shall devolve upon her mother and father. The petitioner and respondents 1 to 6 came forward stating that they are the legal heirs of the husband of Janikamma by name Seatharami Reddy which is not denied by the 8th respondent, who is claiming the amounts of Janikamma with the 7th respondent. 12. The contention of the 8th respondent and the argument on his behalf is that though the petitioner and respondents 1 to 6 are the legal heirs of Seetharami Reddy, they are not entitled to the amounts of late Janikamma with the 7th respondent as Janikamma separated from her husband 60 years prior to the Death and lived as wife of his father late Balarami Reddy, that his rather was the nominee of Janikamma, to whom he is the sole legal heir and so he is entitled to the amounts. Considering Section 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act the trial court found that as the property of Janikamma with the 7th respondent was not inherited from her husband Seetharami Reddy, the petitioner is not entitled to get succession certificate in his favour. The argument for the appellant is that there is nothing to show that the property of Janikamma with the 7th respondent is the property of late Balaramiraddy to consider that 8th respondent is entitled for it, or that it was inherited from her parents or husband, that as per Section 15(2), property inherited by female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve in the absence of any children to her, upon the heirs of the father and the property Inherited from her husband or father in law, shall devolve on the heirs of the husband, and so the general law of succession as mentioned in Section 15(1) applies and the petitioner, respondents No.1 to 6 are entitled to the amounts of Janikamma with the 7th respondent. As argued for the petitioner there is nothing to show that the amount lying with the 7th respondent deposited by Janikamma was inherited from her parents or from her husband. So it can be considered that it is herself acquired property. As argued for the petitioner there is nothing to show that the amount lying with the 7th respondent deposited by Janikamma was inherited from her parents or from her husband. So it can be considered that it is herself acquired property. In such a case Section 15(2) does not apply and the property of Janikamma shall devolve as per section 15(1). As Janikamma had no children, as per section 15(1)(b)) her property shall devolve upon the heirs of her husband. The argument for the 8th respondent that she lived as wife of Balaramireddy does not hold good as there is nothing to show that there was divorce between Seetharamireddy and Janikamma. In fact she filed suit as legal heir of Seetharamireddy after his death for partition of his properties which was compromised. So it can be said that she died as wife of late Seetharami Reddy. As she had no children, her properties have to be devolved on the heirs of her husband, who are the petitioner and respondents 1 to 6. On the ground that there were no cordial terms between the deceased Janikamma and her husband Seetharamireddy and she lived separately from him 8th respondent is not entitled to claim the amounts of Janikamma as legal heir of the nominee Balaramireddy. Nominee would not get any beneficiary interest, and the nomination indicates the hand which is authorized to receive the amount, as per the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Smt.Sarbati Devi and another Vs. Smt.Usha Devi, AIR 1984 SUPREME COURT 346. Moreover, in this case, nominee also no more. The 8th respondent being the son of the nominee is not entitled to the amount of late Janikamma, under law. On the ground that the petitioner or respondents No.1 to 6 did not look alter Janikamma during her life time and did not attend to her funerals, their right under law cannot be denied. 13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by both the learned counsels and on perusing the citations referred to above, it reveal that no need to interfere in the judgment passed by the first appellate Court. Hence, I am of the opinion that the first appellate Court has rightly allowed the Appeal Suit, which was based on proper appreciation of the evidence. As such, the same warrants no interference from this Court. 14. Hence, I am of the opinion that the first appellate Court has rightly allowed the Appeal Suit, which was based on proper appreciation of the evidence. As such, the same warrants no interference from this Court. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2011 in A.S.No.132 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.