Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, K.MADHAVA REDDY
A.S.Murthy - Appellant
Versus
D.V.S.S.MURTHY - Respondent
Decided On : 01-01-79
SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 - SECTION 213 - WILL - PROBATE - LEGATEE - RIGHT TO ESTABLISH - HINDU WILL - TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION - EXCEPTION - WITHDRAWAL OF MONEY FROM BANK ACCOUNT - JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, the son of the 1st defendant, filed a suit for recovery of plaint schedule properties and movable property, alleging that the 1st defendant and others had obtained his signatures on blank withdrawal forms and documents by threat and intimidation, and had withdrawn money from his bank account. The 1st defendant denied the allegations and claimed that the documents were executed voluntarily. The trial court held that the release deed was obtained by fraud, coercion, and threat and was void, and that the defendants were liable to repay the money withdrawn from the bank account.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the 2nd plaintiff, who claimed right to the plaint schedule properties under a will executed by the 1st plaintiff, was not required to obtain probate as the will was not one to which Section 213(1) of the Succession Act, 1925 applied. The court also held that the 1st defendant was jointly and severally liable with the 2nd defendant for the money withdrawn from the bank account, as the finding that both defendants had acted in concert and had exercised coercion and criminal intimidation on the 1st plaintiff was not challenged.
Issues: 1. Whether the 2nd plaintiff was required to obtain probate to establish his right to the plaint schedule properties under the will executed by the 1st plaintiff. 2. Whether the 1st defendant was liable to repay the money withdrawn from the bank account, even though it was withdrawn by the 2nd defendant.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 213(1) of the Succession Act, 1925 prohibits a legatee from establishing his right as a legatee under a will without obtaining probate or letters of administration. However, Section 213(2) excludes certain wills from the application of Section 213(1), including wills made by Hindus outside the territories subject to the jurisdiction of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal or the Original Civil Jurisdiction of the Madras or Bombay High Courts, so far as they relate to immovable property situate within these territories or limits. 2. The will in question was executed by a Hindu residing in the State of Andhra Pradesh in respect of properties situate in Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, Section 213(2) excluded the will from the prohibition contained in Section 213(1), and the 2nd plaintiff was not required to obtain probate to establish his right to the plaint schedule properties. 3. The finding that both the 1st and 2nd defendants had acted in concert and had exercised coercion and criminal intimidation on the 1st plaintiff and obtained signatures on blank withdrawal forms was not challenged. Therefore, the 1st defendant was jointly and severally liable with the 2nd defendant for the money withdrawn from the bank account.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against Judgment and decree in O. S. No. 40/66 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad c. C. C. A. 86/1976. Dt. 26-3-1979.
( 2 ) THE 1st defendant is the appellant herein. The plaintiff s suit for recovery of plaint schedule properties which comprise of a house bearing No. 3-5-4 and 3-3-5 situated at Ramkote, Hyderabad and for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 9,725/- and a sum of Rs. 13,000/- being the value of the moveable property was decreed by the trial Court against deferdants 1 to 5.
( 3 ) THE 1st defendant is the son of the 1st plaintiff The 2nd defendent is the father-in-law of the 1st defendant. The 3rd defendant is tbc power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff and the 4th defendant is the tenant of the suit house. The 5th defendant is the purchaser of the suit house from the 1st defendant, Dr. Brahmanandam, the 1st plaintiff had secured a Life interest in the suit house under a will executed by his wife on 10-3-1960. II is his case that while he was living in that bouse, on 25-2-1965 at about 3-00 p. M. defendants 1 and 2 entered his house dragged him out and forcibly took him in a taxi to Madugula village in Sangareddy Taluk and kept him under wrongful confinment. There the 2nd defendant requisitioned the services of the 3rd defendant and by threat and intimidation took some letters and documents from him. Oa 17-3-1965 defendants 1 to 3 took him in a taxi from Maendugula village to Khammam town and kept him in house managed by Kirana Maerchant by name Burla Sambasiva Rao. There they administered him some drugs and intoxicants as a result of which he became unconscious and mentally subjugated to the defendants. By threat, coercion and fraud the defendants obtained bis signatures on the papers between 20-3-1965 and 30-3-1965. They also similarly obtained signature on a general power of attorney in favour of the 3rd defendant authorising him to present the documents for registration. On the strength of the signatures obtained on blank withdrawal forms of the Bank, the 2nd defendant withdrew on 21-4-1965 a sum of Rs. 9,1251- from the Savings Bank account of the plaintiff with the Bank of Baroda, Hyderabad. Defendants 1 to 3 also obtained a release deed dated 3-3-1965 at Khammam in respect of the agricultural lands mentioned in schedule I of the planint and in respect of the residential house mentioned in Schedule II. The 1st defendant thereafter executed on uscfrauctuary mortgage on 22-3-1965 in favour of the 4th defendant and delivered possession of the suit house to him. The 1st defendant after removing the plaintiff from the house illegally sold away the entire furniture, valuable books, utensils and other movable properties shown in Schedule III of the plaint valued at Rs. 13. 000/ -. The 1st defendant sold away the plaint schedule house to No. 5th defendant. The plaintiff therefore prays for the cancellation of the release deed dated 30-3-1965 and for declaration that the release deed dated 30-3-1965 is void for being put in possession of the suit house for a decree for recovery of Rs. 9,725/- against defendants 1 and 2 jointly and severally and for delivering the money and articles mentioned in schedule III or to pay its value of Rs. 13,000/ -.
( 4 ) WHILE defendants 3 and 4 remained expart, the 1st defendant filed a written statement denying all the allegations except that his mother lakshmi Narasamma had executed a will in favour of his father in respect of the suit house. He denied that any documents were caecuted by the plaintiff under threat, coercion or intimidation. He asserts that they were executed by the plaintiff voluntarily; because the plaintiff bad borrowed moneys from the 4th defendant and that the 4th defendant, pressed for payment, the 1st defendant executed the mortgage deed in favour of the 4th defendant. He denied the existence of any moveables and also that he had removed them. He asserted that the release deed was exec
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
