The appellate court must base its decisions on the evidence presented and cannot dismiss a case based on conjectures, especially when the relationship of the parties is established and undisputed.

JUDGMENT:

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI

This appeal is filed against the decree and judgment dated 04.10.2010 allowing thee appeal in A.S.No.53 of 2009 on the file of the Court of District Judge, Srikakulam by setting aside the order dated 22.12.2008 allowing SOOP No.6 of 2006 on the file of the court of Junior Civil Judge, Amadalavallasa and dismissing the same.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the appeal are as follows:

The appellants filed SOP No.6 of 2006 seeking grant of succession certificate in their favour in view of the death of the husband of the 1st petitioner and the father of the 2nd petitioner by name late N.V.Rao as regards the amount of Rs.90,000/- available with the 2nd respondent/railways which is the employer of the deceased N.V.Rao.

3. The petition was opposed by the 1st respondent who is the mother-in-law of the 1st petitioner, while admitting the relationship, however denying the relief on the ground that the petitioners alone cannot be granted succession certificate and that she is also entitled to be included in the succession certificate and further that the petitioners have to deposit as required under Article 7 of Schedule 1 of APCF and SV Act.

4. On behalf of the petitioners, the 1st petitioner got herself as examined as PW.1 and three more witnesses were examined on her behalf and Exs.P.1 to P.3 were marked. On behalf of the respondents RWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.R.1 to R.7 were marked.

5. Since the relationship is admitted and the relationship of the 1st petitioner with the deceased continued till his death and their marriage was subsisting till then, the trial Court allowed the petition directing issue of succession certificate declaring that the 1st and 2nd petitioners, along with the 1st respondent, are entitled to 1/3rd share each out of the death benefits of the deceased N.V.Rao payable by the 2nd respondent.

6. Aggrieved by the decree and judgment, the 1st respondent preferred appeal and the appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the decree and order passed by the trail Court and consequently dismissed the petition in SOP No.6 of 2006 holding that the petitioners have not filed any evidence to prove their relationship with the deceased, inspite of the admission of the 1st respondent and expressed doubt about the relationship in view of a petition filed by one Prem Kishore to add him as the 4th respondent stating that the 1st petitioner is his step mother and alleged that she suppressed his birth through the deceased N.V.Rao through his wife.

7. Aggrieved by the decree and judgment in the appeal, this second appeal was preferred along with I.A.No.3 of 2021 filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to receive additional evidence.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellate court has erroneously dismissed the SOP No.6 of 2006 on the conjectures and surmises ignoring the admitted facts. He further submitted that the 2nd respondent, having received the notice and failed to appear and remained ex parte and that there was no resistance from the 2nd respondent and thereby the submissions made by the petitioners have not been disputed. He further submitted that the petitioner who appeared before the appellate Court to get himself impleaded had not challenged the order declining him to be added, however without his impleadment, the appellate court declined the relief merely because of his intervention.

9. Pending the appeal before this Court, the 1st respondent died and her LRs were brought on record as respondents no.3 to 5. Inspite of publication of their notices in daily news paper they have not turned up.

10. The learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that there is no counter filed by the 2nd respondent and, therefore, they have no arguments to advance.

11. I.A.No.3 of 2024 is filed to receive the Xerox copy of additional documents filed as additional evidence as the same were obtained subsequent to the disposal of the proceedings before the