Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 709 (TS)

Lucy Liu v. Osbert Pin Chiang Liu

2024-09-09

M.G.PRIYADARSINI, MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

body2024
JUDGMENT : M.G. Priyadarsini, J. Heard Ms. Manjari S. Ganu, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.C. Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 11.01.2023 passed in O.S.No.116 of 2020 on the file of learned X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, the sole plaintiff preferred the present Appeal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the Trial Court. 4. The brief facts of the case are that appellant herein i.e., plaintiff, who is alleged to be the wife of late Kuo Chien Gavin Liu, filed O.S.No.116 of 2020 against defendant Nos.1 to 4, who are her children to declare herself and defendant Nos.1 to 4 as legal heirs of late Kuo Chien Gavin Liu and also to declare the plaintiff as absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule properties by virtue of Will Deed dated 20.09.2012 executed by Kuo Chien Gavin Liu. A perusal of plaint averments discloses that during the life time of late Kuo Chien Gavin Liu, he acquired the suit schedule ‘A’ to ‘C’ properties vide Exs.A2, A5 and A6 respectively. The plaintiff submitted that Kuo Chien Gavin Liu passed away on 21.11.2012 vide Ex.A1 death certificate leaving behind the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 as his sole and surviving legal heirs. During the life time of Kuo Chien Gavin Liu, he executed Will Deed under Ex.A4 bequeathing the suit schedule properties in favour of plaintiff, who became absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule properties. Thereafter, when the plaintiff intended to dispose of the suit schedule properties, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 denying the same and intending purchasers are insisting to get declaration from competent court. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit. 5. In reply, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 filed written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff that their mother i.e., the plaintiff becamse absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule properties by virtue of Will Deed executed by their father Kuo Chien Gavin Liu. 6. Apart from examining herself as PW1, the plaintiff got examined the elder brother of Kuo Chien Gavin Liu as PW2 and also exhibited Exs.A1 to A6 on her behalf. The defendants failed to adduce either oral or documentary evidence. 6. Apart from examining herself as PW1, the plaintiff got examined the elder brother of Kuo Chien Gavin Liu as PW2 and also exhibited Exs.A1 to A6 on her behalf. The defendants failed to adduce either oral or documentary evidence. The Trial Court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that, to maintain a suit for relief of declaration of any legal character, or to any right as to any property of a person, there must be another person or interest to deny the title of such persons to such character or right. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred the present Appeal. 7. There is no dispute with regard to the death of late Kuo Chien Gavin Liu on 21.11.2012 as is evident from Ex.A1 death certificate. The plaintiff relied upon Ex.A4 i.e., original Will Deed to substantiate that she has become the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule properties, which were acquired by her husband Kuo Chien Gavin Liu under Exs.A2, A5 and A6. The observation of the Trial Court in the impugned judgment is that mere purpose of getting declaration as the intending purchasers insisted to get declaration from the competent court is not a ground to grant relief of declaration to the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 to be declared as legal heirs of late Kuo Chien Gavin Liu. 8. It is specific case of the plaintiff that when she intended to dispose of the properties, she was asked to produce legal heir certificate from competent court. This statement clearly discloses that the prospective purchasers sought for proof from the plaintiff to establish that plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 are the only legal heirs of late Kuo Chien Gavin Liu. When the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 were asked to establish that they are the only legal heirs of late Kuo Chien Gavin Liu, it is nothing but denial of the relationship between the plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 to 4 and late Kuo Chien Gavin Liu by the defendants. Thus, the plaintiff has satisfied the ingredients that are required under Section 34 of The Specific Relief Act to grant a declaratory relief in favour of the plaintiff. Despite service of notice to defendant No.5 (all concerned) by way of paper publication, none came forward to oppose the claim of the plaintiff before the Trial Court. Thus, the plaintiff has satisfied the ingredients that are required under Section 34 of The Specific Relief Act to grant a declaratory relief in favour of the plaintiff. Despite service of notice to defendant No.5 (all concerned) by way of paper publication, none came forward to oppose the claim of the plaintiff before the Trial Court. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff has filed paper publication even in this Appeal in Saakshi Telugu daily newspaper on 20.07.2024, however, none appeared on behalf of defendant No.5 (all concerned). 9. The Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff with an observation that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the essentials of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. At this juncture, it is appropriate to extract Section 34 of The Specific Relief Act, which is as: “34. Discretion of Court as to declaration of status or right: Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such 2 character or right, and the Court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief: PROVIDED that no Court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so.” 10. A perusal of Section 34 of the Act, 1963 and its proviso, it is clear that it does not bar the suit for declaration of legal character, but it simply regulates the suit which is in the nature of mere declaration without seeking further relief, which the plaintiff is able to seek, but when there is no requirement for further relief, then seeking further relief is not necessary. The declaration seeks to clear what is doubtful, and it prevents future litigation by removing existing causes of controversy. It gives a remedy to a person against all persons who not only claim adverse interest to his own but against all those who may do so, and it is intended that all such claims may once and for all be determined in one suit. It gives a remedy to a person against all persons who not only claim adverse interest to his own but against all those who may do so, and it is intended that all such claims may once and for all be determined in one suit. The object of Section 34 of the Special Relief Act, 1963 is to provide a perpetual bulwark against adverse attack on the title of the plaintiff and to prevent further litigation by removing the existing cause of controversy. If any of the essential elements are missing, then the court will not provide any relief of declaration. The plaintiff has to prove that the defendant No.1 has denied or is interested in denying to the character or title of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has to establish that there must be some present danger to his/her interest. The denial must be communicated to the plaintiff in order to give her a cause of action. The court must exercise their rights while granting declaratory decree and only in proper cases, this legal remedy should be granted so as to avoid multiplicity of suits and to remove clouds over legal rights of a rightful person. 11. The contention of the plaintiff is that being the legal heir of late Kuo Chien Gavin Liu, she intends to dispose of the suit schedule properties. But the defendant Nos.1 to 4 were against the wish of the plaintiff. In the plaint, the plaintiff sought for the relief of declaring plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 as legal heirs and successors of deceased late Sri Kuo Chien Gavin Liu, which is under the provision of Section 34 of The Specific Relief Act and also sought for the consequential relief to declare the plaintiff as absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule property by virtue of will executed by Sri Kuo Chien Gavin Liu. Since the Trial Court has proceeded on the assumption that the plaintiff failed to place any material on record that none has denied the relationship between Kuo Chien Gavin Liu, plaintiff and defendants, the suit was dismissed. This observation and conclusion of the Trial Court, in our view is unsustainable. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that prior to filing of the suit, when she intended to alienate the properties, her own sons objected for the same. This observation and conclusion of the Trial Court, in our view is unsustainable. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that prior to filing of the suit, when she intended to alienate the properties, her own sons objected for the same. Further, the prospective purchasers have also insisted the plaintiff to produce some declaratory proof issued by competent court to establish that plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 are the only legal heirs of Sri Kuo Chien Gavin Liu. However, after filing of the suit, the sons of plaintiff i.e., defendant Nos.1 to 4 have filed their written statement admitting the suit claim of the plaintiff. Therefore, under these circumstances and in the absence of any dispute raised by anyone before the Trial Court, the Trial Court ought to have considered the legal status of the plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 to 4 and consequential relief sought for by the plaintiff as legal heirs of late Kuo Chien Gavin Liu, in proper perspective. 12. It is pertinent to note that after dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff has filed I.A.No.959 of 2023 by invoking Order XLVII read with Sections 114 and 151 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to review the Judgment and Decree dated 11.01.2023 passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.116 of 2020, however, the said application was dismissed. In the review application, the plaintiff brought to the notice of the Trial Court that when the plaintiff enquired with Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (in short ‘GHMC’) for effecting mutation on the basis of Will executed by her husband, she was told that merely based on the said Will, the properties cannot be mutated and she has to obtain appropriate orders from the concerned Court. Had the GHMC authorities mutated the name of the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule properties, there could not have been any necessity for the plaintiff to file the present suit. 13. Since the provision under Section 34 of The Specific Relief Act specifically enumerates that if a person is entitled to any legal character or to any right to property, then in the absence of denial of such right to any property or legal character, the Court is entitled to grant declaratory relief if consequential relief is also sought for. 13. Since the provision under Section 34 of The Specific Relief Act specifically enumerates that if a person is entitled to any legal character or to any right to property, then in the absence of denial of such right to any property or legal character, the Court is entitled to grant declaratory relief if consequential relief is also sought for. In the present case, the plaintiff sought relief of declaration of legal heirs of late Kuo Chien Gavin Liu and also sought for the consequential relief in respect of suit schedule properties that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule properties, therefore, we are of the considered view that the plaintiff established the ingredients of relief of Section 34 of The Specific Relief Act so that the relief sought by her in the suit be granted in her favour. The only grievance of the plaintiff is that when she is intending to dispose of the suit schedule properties, the prospective purchasers are insisting for production of legal heir certificate. When the prospective purchasers are insisting for production of legal heir certificate to purchase the suit schedule properties, it is nothing but denial of the relationship between the plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 to 4 and late Kuo Chien Gavin Liu. The Trial Court misdirected itself and erroneously dismissed the suit on the ground that none has opposed or denied the relationship between the deceased and parties to the suit. 14. During the course of arguments, both the parties have filed their respective memos by enclosing their identity proofs to establish their relationship with late Kuo Chien Gavin Liu. The learned counsel for the plaintiff filed Photostat copies of aadhar cards of plaintiff, her husband late Kuo Chien Gavin Liu and their household card. Apart from that the learned counsel for the respondents filed Photostat copies of aadhar cards of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and birth certificate of respondent No.4. These documents disclose that the plaintiff and defendants are the legal representatives of late Kuo Chien Gavin Liu. 15. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the trial Court ought to have granted the relief as prayed for by the plaintiff. These documents disclose that the plaintiff and defendants are the legal representatives of late Kuo Chien Gavin Liu. 15. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the trial Court ought to have granted the relief as prayed for by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, who is the wife of late Kuo Chien Gavin Liu, could establish by adducing oral and documentary evidence that she along with defendant Nos.1 to 4 are the only legal heirs of late Kuo Chien Gavin Liu and thereby the impugned Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court is liable to be set aside. 16. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed by setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated 11.01.2023 passed in O.S.No.116 of 2020 on the file of learned X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff in O.S.No.116 of 2020 is decreed declaring the plaintiff and defendant0 Nos.1 to 4 as legal heirs of late O.S.No.116 of 2020. Further, the plaintiff is hereby declared as absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule ‘A’ to ‘C’ properties. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.