( 1 ) DEFENDANTS 2 and 4 in O. S. No. 1195 of 1989 on the file of the iv Additional Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad, are the appellants. Respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs in the suit. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the legal heirs of deceased Dr. Tajammul Hussain, as per the Succession Certificate granted in o. P. No. 15 of 1985 by the Court of the viii Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad, on 27-2-1989 and are alone entitled to the shares of 1/8th and 7/8th respectively as per Shia Law of inheritance to all the amounts in the Banks. Margadarshi chit Fund Private Limited and shares as shown in schedule 1 and 2 of the plaint with a right to operate and withdraw the same.

( 2 ) HERE itself it may be mentioned that in Para 13 (b) of the plaint, the following relief was prayed for :"that as per the undertaking the 2nd defendant is bound to pay the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs Rs. 86,350/- withdrawn by him surreptitiously praying for Decree jointly against the 9th defendant also for making payment during the pendency of the O. P. 15 of 1985 despite being a party to the proceedings and also after receiving the letter from the plaintiffs advocate that theory of advancement is not applicable to disburse the amounts in favour of a nominee. "and the same had been deleted on 13-7-1989. The defendants in the suit filed written statement in detail and contested the matter. The learned Judge recorded the evidence of PW. 1 and DW. 1 and marked exs. A-1 to A-12 and ultimately came to the conclusion that plaintiffs 1 and 2 are alone entitled to their respective shares of the schedule amounts as legal representatives of late Dr. Tajammul Hussain and accordingly the suit was decreed declaring plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the legal representatives dr. Tajammul Hussain and plaintiffs, are entitled for Rs. 25,000/- towards Meher amount and Rs. 15,597/- due shown in clearance certificate out of the total amount left by Dr. Tajammul Hussain, in plaint schedule 1 and 2 and in the remaining amount, the first plaintiff is entitled to 1/8th and second plaintiff is entitled to 7/8th share and the plaintiffs are entitled to costs from defendant Nos. 1 to 8. Aggrieved by the same, defendants 2 and 4 had preferred the appeal C. C. C. A. No. 76 of 1996. The first and second respondents in the appeal-plaintiffs in the suit filed cross-objections under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for the amount of Rs. 86,350/- which had been withdrawn with interest at 24% per annum from the date of undertaking i. e. , from 28-10-1985 to 29-3-1996, the date of judgment.

( 3 ) CONTENTIONS of Sri Basith Ali yawar : sri Basith Ali Yawar, the learned Counsel representing the appellants had taken this Court through the findings which had been recorded in O. P. No. 15 of 1985 by the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad, and would maintain that these proceedings in relation to Succession certificate being summary proceedings, the civil Court while deciding the matter in an original suit may have to decide the questions in controversy afresh, inasmuch as the said findings cannot be said to be res judicata or in any way binding on the parties. The learned Counsel also explained the relationship between the parties and would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, inasmuch as the daughter is entitled to only a specified share as specified in the Table under Section 90 in Mullas principles of Mahomedan Law, for the rest of the amounts, no doubt excluding the share of the wife, to which the wife may be entitled to, the other shares representing the sisters and brother of Dr. Tajammul hussain alone would be entitled to and in this view of the matter the learned Judge erred in granting the relief as prayed for. The learned Counsel, in all fairness, had accepted that amount had been withdrawn and an undertaking had been filed. But, however, the learned Counsel would main

Click Here to Read the rest of this document