Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 822 (TS)

C. Ashok Kumar v. G. Sunitha

2025-06-09

G.RADHA RANI

body2025
ORDER : G.RADHA RANI, J. CRP No.2814 of 2019 is filed by the petitioner-respondent No.6 against the order passed in I.A .No.406 of 2019 and CRP No.2815 of 2019 is filed by the petitioner-respondent No.6 against the order passed in I.A. No.405 of 2019 in SOP No.22 of 2018 on the file of the I-Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Both the I.As. are disposed of vide common order dated 23.08.2019. 2. The above I.As. are filed by the petitioner-respondent No.6 under Order XVI Rule 14 read with Section 151 of CPC to reopen the matter for the purpose of cross-examination of the respondent No.2- petitioner No.2 i.e. Sri G. Narasimha Rao in SOP No.22 of 2018 by summoning him. 3. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed SOP No.22 of 2018 under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of succession certificate for their 1/3 rd share each in the outstanding amount of Rs.22,65,428-82 Ps., of late Narsing Gooda Rao in Canara Bank, Abid Road Branch and 1/3 rd share each in two accounts pertaining to late Narsing Gooda Rao with the State Bank of India, Bank Street, NRI Branch, for an outstanding amount of Rs.3,66,231/- and a balance of Rs.1,36,807/- in SBNRE along with interest accrued as on the date of payment. The case of the petitioners was that Smt. G. Sunitha (petitioner No.1 in SOP No.22 of 2018) and Smt. C. Indira (respondent No.3 in SOP No.22 of 2018) were the sisters and the petitioner No.2 Sri G. Narasimha Rao was the brother of late Narsing Gooda Rao, who died in USA on 25.03.2015 leaving them behind him as his legal heirs and successors to his properties both movable and immovable. The said SOP was filed for issuing succession certificate in respect of the movable properties i.e. bank deposits, which were in the knowledge of the petitioners. They stated that their brother late Narsing Gooda Rao died due to old age in Florida, USA. He worked as a Professor in a University in Florida. He was unmarried. There was an outstanding amount as stated above in his bank accounts in Hyderabad. The petitioners and the respondent No.3 being the only legal heirs and successors to the estate of late Narsing Gooda Rao, were entitled to 1/3 rd share each. He worked as a Professor in a University in Florida. He was unmarried. There was an outstanding amount as stated above in his bank accounts in Hyderabad. The petitioners and the respondent No.3 being the only legal heirs and successors to the estate of late Narsing Gooda Rao, were entitled to 1/3 rd share each. As the respondent No.3 was suffering from Alzheimer’s disease and as she was not in a position to recognize anyone and could not take any decision on her own and as she was taken care of by her sons, the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 alone filed the SOP in respect of their shares only to an extent of 2/3 rd leaving the 1/3 rd share of the respondent No.3 to claim separately by her or her legal heirs. The sons of the respondent No.3 filed implead petitions to add them as parties to come on record as the next friends of the respondent No.3 to safeguard the interest of the respondent No.3. The said petitions were allowed and they were brought on record as respondent Nos.5 and 6. During the course of trial, the petitioners adduced their evidence. The respondent No.6 at that stage filed these applications to reopen the matter and to summon the petitioner No.2 i.e. Sri G. Narasimha Rao for the purpose of cross-examination. 4. The respondent No.6 filed an affidavit in support of the petitions stating that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 filed the main OP by playing fraud upon their mother by concealing the particulars of the cheques amounting to Rs.1.00 Crore (approximately) and Rs.70.00 lakhs apart from the subject matter of OP. The said amounts were received by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 (petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in the main OP) from the American Attorney Mr. Melvin D Stack, who sent the cheques belonging to the deceased Narsing Gooda Rao to Sri G. Narasimha Rao. The OP was filed for issuing succession certificate only in respect of the bank deposits which were in their knowledge reserving their right to file succession certificate in respect of the movable and immovable properties which they would come across in future if necessary. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 – petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in the main OP clandestinely received the cheques totalling to a sum of Rs.1.70 crores from the deceased Narsing Gooda Rao through his American Attorney Mr. Melvin D Stack. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 – petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in the main OP clandestinely received the cheques totalling to a sum of Rs.1.70 crores from the deceased Narsing Gooda Rao through his American Attorney Mr. Melvin D Stack. All the said cheques were received by the respondent No.2 i.e. Sri G. Narasimha Rao from the said American Attorney for distribution to the respective legal heirs of late Sri Narsing Gooda Rao. Their mother had not received the cheques worth Rs.1.00 crore (approximately), whereas the respondent Nos.1 and 2 received all the cheques including the cheque of their mother. The respondent No.2 did not appear before the court with a view to suppress the facts. On the other hand, he was saying that he reserved his right to file a succession certificate in respect of other properties left by the deceased Narsing Gooda Rao. The respondent No.1 was denying the receipt of said cheques from the American Attorney. The petitioner No.1- PW.1 deliberately suppressed the said fact during the cross-examination. They also suppressed the fact that they were having another brother by name, G. Sri Ram Pandit, who died leaving behind him, his wife. As such, prayed to allow the petitions. 5. The respondent No.2 Sri G. Narsimha Rao filed counter in the said I.As., contending that the petitioner-respondent No.6 and his brother respondent No.5 were having differences and disputes among themselves and they were trying to gather evidence under the guise of cross- examination for their future litigation. The allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition were no way connected to the subject matter of the OP. The petitions filed by the petitioner were beyond the scope of the order dated 14.09.2018 in I.A. Nos.532 of 2018 and 597 of 2018. The OP was filed only to an extent of 2/3 rd share of respondent Nos.1 and 2 leaving 1/3 rd share of their elder sister Smt. C. Indira, who was suffering from Alzheimers. She was shown as party in the OP only for the limited purpose of clarification. Taking advantage of it, the sons of Smt. C. Indira filed implead petitions before the court and the court got added them for a limited purpose only to safeguard the interest of the respondent No.3 in the SOP. She was shown as party in the OP only for the limited purpose of clarification. Taking advantage of it, the sons of Smt. C. Indira filed implead petitions before the court and the court got added them for a limited purpose only to safeguard the interest of the respondent No.3 in the SOP. The respondent-petitioner made it clear in the SOP stating that he was having no objection to grant succession certificate in favour of the respondent No.3 also with regard to her share. After the evidence of respondent Nos.1 and 2 (petitioners in main SOP) was closed, after cross-examination, again filing a petition to reopen the matter and summoning the respondent No.2 for the purpose of cross-examination was contrary to the orders dated 14.09.2018 passed by the court. He further contended that they had not suppressed any facts before the court. As the wife of Sri Ram Pandit was not the legal heir of Narasing Gooda Rao and since Sri Ram Pandit died long back in the year 1990 without any issues and his wife was also a citizen of America and was not entitled to claim any rights over the properties of Narsing Gooda Rao, she was not added as a party. Infact, the counsel for the petitioner cross-examined PW.1 on the said aspect. There was no plea in the counter on that aspect. The petitioner was intentionally trying to bring new facts, which were no way connected to the main SOP, and prayed to dismiss the petitions. 6. The trial court, on hearing the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, dismissed both the petitions. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the respondent No.6 preferred these revisions. 7. Heard Sri K.R.K. Gargeya, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri G. Naga Bhushana Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 (petitioners in the main SOP) and Sri Chavali Ramanand, learned counsel for the respondent No.7. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the court erroneously gave a finding that as the respondent Nos.1 and 2 had admitted the share of respondent No.3, therefore, it was not necessary to summon the respondent No.2 i.e. petitioner No.2 in the main SOP for the purpose of cross-examination. The court ought to have observed that the respondent No.2 and another suppressed the facts with regard to receiving the cheques belonging to the estate of the deceased late Dr. The court ought to have observed that the respondent No.2 and another suppressed the facts with regard to receiving the cheques belonging to the estate of the deceased late Dr. Narasing Gooda Rao from the American Attorney Mr. Melvin D. Stack. Only a part of the amounts were mentioned in the present SOP by pleading that they reserved their right to file another Succession OP in respect of other properties, instead of seeking a common succession certificate with respect to all the amounts received from the estate of the deceased late Dr.Narsing Gooda Rao. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 not revealed the fact about the amounts received from their brother late Dr. Narasing Gooda Rao through cheques to respondent No.2 herein and not distributed the same equally, which would amount to cheating and playing fraud with respondent No.3 i.e. mother of the petitioners. The Succession OP was filed only to the extent of the amounts deposited in respondent banks by suppressing the factum of other huge amounts received by the respondent No.2 herein. Therefore, it was just and necessary to summon the respondent No.2 to elicit the real facts regarding the cheques and the amount received by respondent No.2 herein from the Attorney and prayed to allow the revisions. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed the SOP seeking succession certificate claiming their 1/3 rd share each in the property of the deceased Narsing Gooda Rao. They had not claimed the rights of the respondent No.3 Smt. C. Indira. She was alive by the date of filing the SOP. Subsequently, she died. As the respondent Nos.1 and 2 were not disputing the 1/3 rd share of the respondent No.3 in the suit schedule properties, summoning the respondent No.2 was not required. The petitions were filed only for dragging the proceedings. The matter was coming before the trial court for adducing the evidence of the respondents. The petitioner had also filed I.A .No.1055 of 2023 making a counter claim for their share out of the 1/3 rd share of their mother. On one side, the petitioners had filed counter claim and on the other side was opposing the SOP, which was contradictory. There was no illegality in the order passed by the trial court, and prayed to dismiss the revision petitions. 10. On one side, the petitioners had filed counter claim and on the other side was opposing the SOP, which was contradictory. There was no illegality in the order passed by the trial court, and prayed to dismiss the revision petitions. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent No.7 prayed to pass orders on merits. 11. Perused the record. 12. The Succession OP No.22 of 2018 was filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 – petitioners in the main OP in the year 2018 claiming 1/3 rd share in the outstanding amounts in the account of their deceased brother late Narasing Gooda Rao. They have shown their another sister as respondent No.3 stating that as she was suffering from Alzheimer’s disease and was not in a position to recognize any body and was unable to take decisions on her own and was being taken care by her sons, they were claiming only with regard to their shares to an extent of 2/3 rd, leaving the 1/3 rd share of the respondent No.3 to claim separately by her or her legal heirs. The sons of the respondent No.3 got themselves impleaded as respondent Nos.5 and 6 and they also filed a counter claim claiming half share out of the 1/3 rd share of their mother in respect of the schedule properties i.e. the outstanding amounts in the bank accounts of late Sri Narsing Gooda Rao. 13. The respondent No.6 filed both these applications to reopen the evidence of the petitioners and to summon the respondent No.2 (petitioner No.2 in the main SOP) to subject himself for cross-examination on the ground that he received cheques amounting to Rs.1.70 crores pertaining to the deceased Narasing Gooda Rao through his American Attorney Mr. Melvin D. Stack and that the share of their mother in the said amount was not given to her. But, the said aspect was out of the scope of the subject matter of the OP. Without filing any proof to show that the respondent No.2 (petitioner No.2 in the main SOP) had received the cheques to an extent of Rs.1.70 crores from the American Attorney of the deceased Narasing Gooda Rao, by name, Mr. But, the said aspect was out of the scope of the subject matter of the OP. Without filing any proof to show that the respondent No.2 (petitioner No.2 in the main SOP) had received the cheques to an extent of Rs.1.70 crores from the American Attorney of the deceased Narasing Gooda Rao, by name, Mr. Melvin D Stack and without filing any amendment petition to include the above amount in the schedule of the SOP, summoning the respondent No.2 (petitioner No.2 in the main SOP) G. Narsimha Rao and subjecting him for cross-examination on the said aspect was not relevant to decide the SOP. 14. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner filed a memo to receive additional material papers containing the copies of e-mails and their screen shots sent by the respondent No.2 to the American Attorney and waiver of priority, consent to appoint personal representative and waiver of notice and bond given by respondent No.3 Smt. C. Indira and the medical certificate of respondent No.3 Smt. C. Indira issued by the consultant Neuro Physician stating that she was suffering from Alzheimer’s disease and forgot to sign and was not in a position to give her valid consent except attesting thumb impressions. The said additional material papers also would not disclose about receiving any amount as alleged by the petitioner-respondent No.6 by the respondent No.2 (petitioner No.2 in the main SOP), by name, Sri G. Narasimha Rao from the American Attorney. As such, the said documents were not material to prove the contention of the petitioner. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Kosuru Kalinga Maharaju v. Kosuru Kaikamma , [ 1999 (6) ALD 789 ] on the aspect that either party to the suit proceedings can summon a person including a party to the suit who is not called as a witness by a party to the suit, as a witness. 16. He also relied upon the judgment of the High Court of A.P. in T. Narayana Reddy v. Patan Razak Khan and another , [ 2009 (1) ALT 471 ] on the aspect that the Court may examine a party to the suit as Court witness subject to satisfaction that examination of such person is necessary under Order XVI Rule 14 of CPC. 17. 17. He also relied upon the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in M.C. Ananda and another v. M.C. Chikkanna and another , [AIR 2001 KARNATAKA 139] on the aspect that as per Order 21 Rule 16 of CPC as amended by the Karnataka High Court, the Rule indicates that a party to the suit may be required and a party may be entitled to require any other party to the suit to give evidence or to produce the documents and the court below proceeded on a mistaken notion that a party to the suit is not entitled subject to the power and permission of the Court to summon or to examine the opposite party. The expression ‘any other party thereto’ is indicative of the party to the suit or to say party other than summoning the party which may include the opposite party. In other words, the plaintiff may summon the defendant as a witness and require him, to produce the documents. Similarly, the defendant may summon the plaintiff, but it is open to the court, if in its opinion, summoning of the other party or opponent is likely to result in the abuse of the process of the court, it may refuse as well. 18. There is no dispute with regard to the prepositions laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts in the above cases. Under Order XVI Rule 14 of CPC, either party to the suit proceedings can seek summons to any person including a party to the suit who was not examined before the court. The only question before this Court is whether adopting such procedure is required or relevant as per the facts of the present case. The respondent Nos.1 and 2-petitioners in the main SOP had not disputed about the share of the respondent No.3 in the properties shown in the schedule. They claimed only to the extent of their shares i.e. 1/3 rd share each leaving the share of the respondent No.3. As such, summoning and examining the respondent No.2-petitioner No.2 in the main SOP i.e. Sri G. Narasimha Rao, is no way required. 19. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.2 is required to be cross-examined on the aspect of receiving cheques to an extent of Rs.1.70 crores is outside the scope of this SOP. As such, summoning and examining the respondent No.2-petitioner No.2 in the main SOP i.e. Sri G. Narasimha Rao, is no way required. 19. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.2 is required to be cross-examined on the aspect of receiving cheques to an extent of Rs.1.70 crores is outside the scope of this SOP. No evidence or proof was filed by the petitioner-respondent No.6 to show that the respondent No.2 had received the said amount. As such, summoning him and cross-examining him on the said aspect is not relevant or material for the disposal of the present SOP. The succession OP is of the year 2018 and though the respondent Nos.1 and 2-petitioners in the main SOP reported no objection for reserving the share of the respondent No.3, the matter could not be disposed of till date. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the order of the trial court to set aside the same. 20. In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed confirming the common order dated 23.08.2019 passed in I.A. Nos.405 and 406 of 2019 in SOP No.22 of 2018 by the I-Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. No costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.