ORDER:

This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment dated 27.09.2016 in O.S.No.346 of 2016, on the file of the Sub- Divisional Magistrate and Special Assistant Agent to Government, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam, wherein the said suit filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff No.4 and respondents herein/plaintiffs 1 to 3 for declaration of legal heirs of the deceased late Meesala Bhanu Prakash, was decreed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.

3. The petitioner herein is plaintiff No.4 and respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are plaintiff Nos.1 to 3. They filed the suit filed for declaration of legal heirs of the deceased late Meesala Bhanu Prakash, who died on 12.07.2016. The first respondent is wife, respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein are minor children and petitioner herein is the mother of the deceased late Meesala Bhanu Prakash.

The first respondent represented all of them and filed the suit. The said suit was decreed by judgment dated 27.09.2016 declaring the petitioner herein and respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein as Class-I legal heirs of the deceased. Assailing the said judgment and decree, the petitioner, who is mother of the deceased, filed the present revision.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first respondent played fraud on the court by signing in the plaint on behalf of the petitioner herein by furnishing the false address though she was not residing in the said address. The court below, without verifying the signatures on the plaint, mechanically passed the impugned decree and judgment and prays to set aside the same. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that the first respondent/first plaintiff has not committed any fraud on the court and she has furnished the address of petitioner/plaintiff No.4 as the petitioner was residing with them during the life time of her son. The first respondent, without any ill-motive, signed on her behalf and on behalf her children as well as the petitioner herein and no false information was pleaded before the court and to obtain Class-I legal heir certificate from the court, they filed the suit for declaration to declare the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein as Class-I legal heirs of the deceased. The court below by the impugned judgment has rightly allowed the suit and declared them as Class-I legal heirs of the deceased and the same does not suffer from any infirmity and prays to dismiss the revision.

6. The only question that arises for consideration is – whether the respondents have committed any fraud and the court below committed any error without noticing the fraud and passed the impugned judgment?

7. A perusal of the material on record would disclose that the husband of the first respondent viz., Meesala Bhanu Prakash died on 12.07.2016 while in service at their house in Bhadrachalam town due to ill-health.

8. It is evident that the first respondent signed the plaint on behalf of her children i.e., respondent Nos.2 and 3 and also on behalf of the petitioner herein in the verification column of the plaint stating that the information furnished by her is correct to the best of their knowledge. In the plaint pleadings, the petitioner has not suppressed any fact and has categorically stated that the petitioner and respondents are Class-I legal heirs of the deceased Meesala Bhanu Prakash. The entire plaint pleadings are attested by the first respondent on behalf of others in the verification column of the plaint. Except that, there is no other allegation on the plea of fraud raised by the revision petitioners. I do not find any force in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the first respondent committed fraud. It is appears that the present revision is filed only to create obstacles to the respondents not to get the death benefits of the deceased, who is husband of the first respondent and son