Point of Law:
Effect of decisions under this Act, and liability of holder of certificate thereunder:- No decision under this Part upon any question of right between any parties shall be held to bar the trial of the same question in any suit or in any other proceeding between the same parties, and nothing in this Part shall be construed to affect the liability of any person who may receive the whole or any part of any debt or security, or any interest or dividend on any security, to account therefore to the person lawfully entitled thereto

JUDGMENT :

This second appeal is directed against the decree and order in A.S.No. 95 of 2018 dated 22.11.2018 of the Court of learned XII Additional District Judge, Krishna at Vijayawada. It was inturn preferred against the decree and order in SOP No. 30 of 2012 dated 17.02.2018 of the Court of learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

2. The appellants filed SOP No.30 of 2012 under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act for issuance of succession certificate in their favour authorizing them to receive the terminal benefits upon the death of Sri Pinapala Rambabu from the 2nd respondent Municipal Corporation and against the respondents 1 and 3. Their request was allowed by the court of the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada directing issuance of succession certificate in their favour and against the respondents. The appeal preferred against it stated above, was allowed in part while directing issuance of succession certificate not only in favour of the appellants but also in favour of the 1st respondent directing to receive the terminal benefits from the 2nd respondent Municipal Corporation.

3. Sri Pinapala Rambabu was electrician Gr-II in Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. He died at Gudivada on 28.01.2012.

4. The contention of the appellants is that they have been the legal heirs and successors to the estate of Pinapala Rambabu, 1st appellant being his wife and appellants 2 and 3 being daughters, who were born out of legal wedlock between the 1st appellant and Sri Pinapala Rambabu. Their contention further is that when they requested the 2nd respondent for the terminal benefits on the death of Sri Pinapala Rambabu, they were directed to obtain a succession certificate from a competent Civil Court and hence they filed a petition under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act. They also contended that since the 3rd respondent did not cooperate with them being son of Sri Pinapala Rambabu, he was made one of the respondents.

5. The 2nd respondent Municipal Corporation stated that the 1st respondent claimed himself being son of Sri Rambabu by his first wife and thus entitled for the terminal benefits upon death of Sri Rambabu. It further contended that the 1st appellant approached their office, as legally wedded wife of Sri Pinapala Rambabu, for the death benefits and requested to appoint the 3rd appellant on compassionate grounds in the place of Sri Pinapala Rambabu. In those circumstances, it required the parties to obtain a certificate from a competent Civil Court.

6. The 3rd respondent is the son of the 2nd respondent. Both of them asserted their claim to the benefits payable on the death of Sri Rambabu opposing the claim of the appellants, while contesting that the 1st appellant was not the legally wedded wife of Sri Rambabu. They also contended that the 1st respondent was born to the 3rd respondent by Sri Rambabu.

7. Considering the evidence let in by the appellants through P.W.1 (1st appellant), P.W.2 and P.W.3 as well as Ex.A1 to Ex.A17 exhibited on their behalf and also the evidence of the 1st respondent as R.W.1, the trial Court held that the appellants were entitled for succession certificate as sought while observing that the 3rd respondent was not established as the wife of Sri Rambabu while also rejecting the parentage claimed by the 1st respondent to Sri Rambabu.

8. In the appeal, the learned appellate Judge while upholding the findings of the trial Court that the appellants being the wife and daughters of Sri Rambabu, held that the 1st respondent is established being the son of Sri Rambabu by the material on record and thus partly reversed the findings of the trial Court, modifying its order and decree as referred to above.

9. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned trial Judge rightly came to the conclusion in directing issuance of succession certificate and that a different stand was taken in the appeal by the 1st respondent as the son of Sri Rambabu born to the 1