IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that prior final decrees in partition suits are binding and that claims based on wills must be established in separate proceedings.

ORDER :

(U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.) :

The petitioner prays for writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in issuing pattadar pass-books (PPBs) and title deeds (TDs) to respondents 5 to 7 with Khatha Nos.2651, 2652 and 2650 respectively for the lands mentioned in the petitioner’s notice dated 17.06.2017 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently set aside the PPBs and TDs.

2. Petitioner’s case succinctly is thus:

(a) One Cherukuri Venkaiah was the owner of the subject properties and some other properties. His wife is Smt. Varalakshmamma through whom he begot a daughter by name Anasuya and the said Anasuya begot two daughters namely Velaga Kamala and Vadlamudi Sarada /respondents 5 and 6 herein. After the death of Varalakshmamma, he married one Cherukuri Satyavathi and she was blessed with son who died within one year after his birth. Venkaiah died on 20.05.1979. Thereafter Satyavathi adopted Cherukuri Ramakrishna/7th respondent under a registered adoption deed.

(b) While so, V. Sarada / 6th respondent filed OS No.226/1987 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur against Cherukuri Satyavathi and respondents 5 and 7 for partition of plaint schedule properties. The trial Court passed a preliminary decree holding that the respondents 5 and 6 herein are entitled to ¼th share each and Smt. Satyavathi is entitled to remaining ½ share. The court held that the adopted son i.e., 7th respondent has no right in the property as his adoption has not divested the rights of the adoptive mother. Questioning the preliminary decree, Satyavathi filed A.S.No.2437/2000 on the file of High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

(c) Pending appeal Satyavathi died. She bequeathed all her properties in favour of the writ petitioner. Hence he filed petition to add him as LR of the deceased Satyavathi on the strength of the Will. The Appellate Court called for a report from the trial Court regarding the genuineness of the Will. The lower Court expressed doubts regarding the genuineness of the Will. However, the Division Bench of the High Court upheld the Will and permitted the writ petitioner to come on record as LR of Satyavathi. The Division Bench also directed him to deposit of Rs.2,29,544/- as mesne profits in the appeal and he obliged. While so, the High Court in its judgment dated 31.07.2000 confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. It further held that as the writ petitioner was added as LR of Satyavathi on the basis of summary enquiry regarding genuineness of Will, as such he has to seek remedy by filing a separate suit and accordingly the writ petitioner filed OS No.202/2015 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Guntur against respondents 5 to 7 seeking for partition of plaint schedule properties into four equal shares and allot three such shares to him on the basis of Will. The said suit is pending.

(d) Now the grievance of the petitioner is that pending the said suit respondents 5 and 6 initiated final decree proceedings and obtained a final decree in OS No.226 of 1987 and they are trying to execute the decree. The writ petitioner is in possession of the property after the death of late Satyavathi. However, without executing the decree, unofficial respondents executed registered partition deed among themselves and applied for issuance of PPBs and TDs on the basis of the final decree proceedings and registered partition deed even though they are not in possession of the properties. They cannot seek for PPBs and TDs as the suit filed by the petitioner is pending. Coming to know about their attempts, the petitioner issued a legal notice to the unofficial respondents and also the revenue authorities. Despite it, the 4th respondent is proceeding to issue PPBs and TDs to the unofficial respondents without hearing the petitioner. Hence the petitioner earlier filed W.P.No.24333 of 2017 and this Court passed the following order

“It is to be noted that at the first instance, the petitioner sent notice dated 17.06.2017 on the proposed