SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Annadata Kumar Chakravarthy AND ANOTHER – Appellant
Versus
Vankamamidi Nagamani – Respondent
OP 229/2022



Advocates:
['M/s G Gokulavani', 'M/S V KARTHIKEYAN', '', 'AOS FILED', 'DNO', '', 'DT', 'VAK FILED ON', 'FOR SOLE RESPT-D NO']

O.P.No.229 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 22.12.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

O.P.No.229 of 2022

1.Mr.Annadata Kumar Chakravarthy

S/o.Venkata Subrahmanyam

No.15-378, Brundavanam,

Opp, To Tikkana Telephone Bhavan,

Nellore, Andhra Pradesh-524 001.

2.Ms. Annadata Shanmuk Pranavi

D/o.Annadata Kumar Chakravarthy

and late Annadata Ram Kusuma,

No.15-378, Brundavanam,

Opp, To Tikkana Telephone Bhavan,

Nellore, Andhra Pradesh-524 001.

... Petitioners

vs.

Mrs.Venkamamidi Nagamani

W/o.Late Samasiva Rao

7-3-23, Prakasam Street, Ramarao Peta,

Kakinana (Urban)

East Godavari,

Andhara Pradesh – 533 004.

... Respondent

PRAYER: Original Petition filed for issuance of Letters of Administration

under Sections 232 and 276 of Indian Succession Act XXXIX of 1925 read

1/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

O.P.No.229 of 2022

with Order XXV Rule 5 of Original Side Rules, prays to grant that Letters

of Administration with the WILL annexed may be granted to them as the

legal heirs of the deceased Mrs.Annadata Ram Kusuma as is the grand

daughter of the deceased and beneficiary under the WILL of the said

deceased having effect limited to the State of Tamil Nadu.

For Petitioners

: Ms.G.Gokulavani

For Respondent : Mr.V.Karthikeyan

O R D E R

The petitioners are the husband and daughter, respectively, of the

beneficiary under the last Will and testament of Mrs.Bollapragada Satya

Kusuma. Since the beneficiary passed away on 22.09.2017, the legal heirs

of the beneficiary presented this petition for grant of letters of

administration.

2. The petitioners assert that the above mentioned last Will and

testament was executed on 20.04.2016 in the presence of the two witnesses,

2/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

O.P.No.229 of 2022

whose names appear at the foot of the Will, and that the Will was registered

as document No.180 of 2016 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Kakinada.

3. It is stated that the testatrix died on 14.06.2016 and the beneficiary

on 22.09.2017. On the ground that one of the assets bequeathed under the

Will is within the jurisdiction of this Court, this petition was filed.

4. In order to establish entitlement to the relief prayed for, the first

petitioner was examined as PW1. In course of the examination-in-chief of

PW1, the 13 documents set out at the foot of this petition were exhibited as

Exs.P1 to P13. A certified copy of the Will, in the Telugu Language, is on

record as Ex.P1. The translation thereof is on record. The Will evidences

execution on 20.04.2016 in the presence of V.Sambasivarao and

V.Nagamani, who signed as attesting witnesses. The beneficiary under the

Will is the testatrix's grand daughter Smt.Annadata Ram Kusuma. The death

certificate of the testatrix is on record as Ex.P2. This document discloses

that the testatrix died on 14.06.2016. The death certificate of the beneficiary

is available. This document discloses that the beneficiary died on

3/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

O.P.No.229 of 2022

22.09.2017. The death certificate contains the name of the first petitioner as

the husband of the beneficiary. The family member certificate, which is

equivalent to a legal heirship certificate, in relation to the beneficiary is on

record as Ex.P5. This document discloses the names of the two petitioners

as the legal heirs of the beneficiary. Documents relating to the assets

bequeathed under the Will are also placed on record as Exs.P7 to P9. The

consent affidavit of the sole respondent is on record as Ex.P10. The sole

respondent, who was also the second attesting witness to the Will, was

examined as PW2. She deposed that the testatrix was her mother. She

further deposed that the Will was executed in her presence and that the

testatrix was in a sound and disposing state of mind at the time of execution

of the Will.

5. Based

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top