B. PRAKASH RAO, J.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri S. Agasthya Sarma, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri M. V. S. Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

( 2 ) THIS appeal is at the instance of the contesting first respondent in the court below filed against the judgment dated 10-11-1997 in O. P. No. 241 of 1993, on the file of the ii Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad allowing the application filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein under section 372 of the Indian Succession Act seeking for grant of succession certificate in respect of the amounts shown in the application.

( 3 ) THE facts of the case are that one sri K. Veeraiah, who is the father of the petitioners in the court below, was an employee working as Supervisor in the postal and Telegraphic Department, deposited various amounts with the third respondent herein which is a Chit Fund company and which was to be refunded with interest at 15% p. a. As per the said deposits, they would mature from 01-02-1993 onwards. However, the mother of the respondents 1 and 2 died long back and their father Sri K. Veeraiah died on 14-10-1992 at Hyderabad. However, since late K. Veeraiah nominated the appellant herein, who is his brother for payment of the said amounts and stated that the respondents 1 and 2 who being the legal heirs are entitled to the same. However, the appellant herein is trying to appropriate the entire amounts by taking advantage of such nomination to which he is entitled to as per law. Hence, the said application has been filed seeking succession certificate in respect of the same amounts.

( 4 ) CONTESTING the claim of the respondents 1 and 2, the case of the appellant in the court below was that there is no dispute in regard to the relationship between the parties. However, since there was serious difference between the respondents 1 and 2 and their deceased father for the last more than 10 years, resulting they severed their connections inter se with their family and further the appellant alone looked after him and the respondents 1 and 2 never came to their father and virtually neglected him totally. Therefore, the deceased K. Veeraiah rightly nominated the appellant and thus it is he who is entitled to the amounts. It is further pointed out that in respect of the other properties, the deceased k. Veeraiah executed a Will in favour of one smt. P. Kanaka Uma Durga, who in fact looked after him during the period of his ailment. The respondents 1 and 2 never assisted their father nor taken care of him. Hence, they are not entitled to succession certificate in respect of the amounts.

( 5 ) ON these and other allegations as contained from out of the respective pleadings, the court below framed the following point for consideration: "whether the petitioners are entitled for the succession certificate in respect of the amounts claimed in the petition?"

( 6 ) DURING the course of enquiry, on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, P. Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-6 were marked. Similarly on behalf of the appellant, r. Ws. 1 to 4 were examined and Exs. B- to b-5 were marked. That apart, Exs. X-1 to x-14 were marked concerning the chit transaction.

( 7 ) CONSIDERING the entire evidence and material on record, the Court below allowed the application granting succession certificate in favour of the respondents 1 and 2, inter alia holding that it is the respondents who are entitled to succeed to the said amounts as Class I heirs under Hindu Law and mere nomination with the Chit Fund company would not either create any right in favour of the appellant nor deprive the rights of the respondents 1 and 2, who are entitled to succeed as per Law.

( 8 ) SRI S. Agasthya Sarma, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously contended that having regard to the nomination which is exclusive, the question of granting any succession certificate in favour of the respondents 1 and 2 does not arise and even the facts and c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document