(Prayer: Appeal Under Section --- against orders

IA NO: 1 OF 2011(CMAMP 2095 OF 2011

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to disburse death benefits of late Thirupalu to the 1st respondent pending disposal of the appeal

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 5020 days in filing the application to set aside the abatement of respondent no.1 in appeal and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the abatement of appeal against the respondent no.1 and pass

IA NO: 3 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit and bring the Legal Representatives of Respondent no.1 on record to contest the C.M.A. No. 1224 OF 2011 and all pending Interlocutory applications as the respondents 4 to 7 being the Legal representatives of Late Vivekanandudu and pass)

1. Challenge in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the appellant herein/Petitioner, is to the Order, dated 10.08.2011, passed in Succession OP No.66 of 2009 by the learned I Additional District Judge, Kurnool (‘the learned trial Judge’ for short), whereunder the learned trial Judge, dismissed the petition filed under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for brevity ‘the Act, 1925’) for grant of Succession Certificate to the appellant herein/petitioner to claim death benefits of one Thirupalu, who died while working as Attender in Silver Jubilee College, Kurnool.

2. The parties to this C.M.A. will hereinafter be referred to, as described before the learned trial Judge, for the sake of convenience.

3. Case of the petitioner is that she is the second wife of one Thirupalu (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the deceased’), who died in the Government General Hospital, Kurnool, while working as Attender in Silver Jubilee College, Kurnool, leaving the petitioner, a daughter and a son viz. Venkata Lakshmamma and Venkata Ramana, respectively. Respondent No.1 is the first wife of the deceased, and their marriage was performed in the year 1987. It is allegation that 1st respondent did not join matrimonial life with the deceased and married one Sunkanna and they were blessed with three children.

                  (b) The deceased executed a Registered Will in favour of petitioner on 14.08.2005 while he was on death bed. On 04.06.2005, 1st respondent and the deceased gave affidavits separately before the Notary-cum-Advocate viz. Rafat, at Kurnool to the effect that she has no objection to make the petitioner to be the nominee to the death benefits of Thirupalu. Subsequent to the death of the deceased, 1st respondent raised objection before 2nd and 3rd respondents for claiming death benefits of the deceased. By virtue of Registered Will and the affidavit of the deceased, the petitioner is entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased for employment as well as his death benefits. As the petitioner was advised to obtain Succession Certificate from the Competent Court, the petitioner filed the OP.

4. Respondent No.1 filed counter denying the allegations made in the petition, contending inter alia that she never married one Sunkanna and never lived with him, and therefore, question of begetting children through him does not arise. Respondent No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the deceased and they led conjugal life and they were blessed with three children viz. Vivekanandam, Sugunamma and Chittemma. The deceased died on 06.09.2005 leaving behind 1st respondent and her children and thereafter, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kallur issued Family Members Certificate in favour of 1st respondent. It is stated that the petitioner belongs to Palamarri village and she was married with one Thikka Rangaswamy of Nagatur village of Nandikotkur Mandal, and she is not at all the wife of the deceased. The petitioner is not entitled to claim any death benefits of the deceased. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Contents of the counter filed by the respondent No.3, which was adopted by 2nd respondent, are that, petitioner and 1st respondent approached them that they are the legal heirs of the deceased, but the Service Register of the deceased does not contain either the nominee or family members of the deceased. In respect of claiming death benefits of the deceased, respondent No.1 produced Family Members Certificate issued by the competent authority, whereas, petitioner produced Registered Will said to have been executed by the deceased. The application for appointment on compassionate grounds will be entertained only when such persons submit proposals through proper channel within one year from the date of death of a Government Servant.

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the learned trial Judge framed the following points for consideration:

                  (1) Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of Succession Certificate, as prayed for?

                  (2) To what relief?

7. During the course of trial, before the learned trial Judge, on behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were got marked. On behalf of respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.X1 to X6 were got marked.

8. The learned trial Judge, on hearing both sides and on examining the oral as well as documentary evidence, vide Order dated 10.08.2011, dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner observing that there is no decree of divorce granted by the Competent Civil Court, dissolving the marriage of 1st respondent with the deceased. Learned trial Judge further observed that the petitioner had not proved the legality of her marriage with the deceased and also failed to prove the Registered Will and thereby held that the petitioner is not entitled to claim death benefits of the deceased, either as his wife or as the second wife. Felt aggrieved of the said Order, the petitioner filed the present C.M.A.

9. During pendency of the CMA on the file of this Court, as 1st respondent died on 20.08.2011 and her only son viz. Y.Vivekanandudu also died on 06.01.2014, vide Order dated 28.11.2025 in I.A.No.3 of 2025 passed by this Court, the legal heirs of the deceased Y.Vivekanandudu viz. Y.Chittemma, Y.Lavanya, Y.Soujana and Y.Pawan Kumar, who are his wife, two daughters and son, respectively, were impleaded as respondent Nos.4 to 7 to the CMA proceedings.

10. Sri K.V.Raghu Veer, learned counsel for the appellant herein/Petitioner would contend that the learned trial Judge did not appreciate the evidence adduced by the petitioner in a proper manner. The evidence of P.W3 establishes that the marriage of petitioner was performed with the deceased and the evidence of P.W2, attestor coupled with Ex.A4-Registered Will, dated 14.08.2005 amply proves the petitioner’s entitlement over the death benefits of the deceased. According to the learned counsel, the learned trial Judge failed to appreciate the documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner under Ex.A3-Notarized affidavit whereby 1st respondent relinquished her right over the death benefits of the deceased, and the trial Judge erroneously held that the marriage of 1st respondent with the deceased is still subsisting, and the petitioner is not entitled to the death benefits.

11. Sri T.Kumar Babu, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 4 to 7 would contend that the learned trial Judge rightly examined the evidence on record and recorded proper findings with regard to relationship of 1st respondent with the deceased and also gave finding with regard to the documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner. Learned counsel would further contend that the evidence of R.W2, Principal of 3rd respondent coupled with Ex.X1- application made by one Vivekananda @ Vivekanandudu, son of the deceased, proves that subsequent to demise of the deceased, an application was made before 3rd respondent for getting employment of his father under compassionate grounds. According to learned counsel, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned Order. Hence, prays to dismiss the C.M.A.

12. Now, in deciding the present C.M.A., the point for determination is whether the Order, dated 10.08.2011, in Succession OP No.66 of 2009 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Kurnool, is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same?

13. It is an undisputed fact from the evidence of either side that the deceased, during his life time, worked as Attender in 3rd respondent-College and he died intestate leaving his legal heirs. The only point that is involved in the present Appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to the Succession Certificate, as prayed for.

14. Admittedly, 1st respondent, first wife of the deceased died on 20.08.2011 during pendency of the present appeal and their only son viz. Vivekananda @ Vivekanandudu also died on 06.01.2014, consequently, legal heirs of 1st respondent son were impleaded as respondent Nos.4 to 7 to the present appeal.

15. A perusal of the evidence of petitioner, who was examined as P.W1, goes to show that she was married with the deceased in the presence of P.W3 in a church and evidencing the same, she got exhibited Ex.A1-Marriage Certificate. However, a perusal of the evidence of P.W1 goes to show that she conceded that her marriage with the deceased was a second marriage and 1st respondent is first wife of the deceased. Indisputably, the marriage of 1st respondent with the deceased was not dissolved by the competent Civil Court.

16. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.1 did not join with the deceased to lead conjugal life, as she performed another marriage with one Sunkanna and she begot one son and two daughters through him. It is the specific case of 1st respondent in her counter as well as in her evidence that she never contacted 2nd marriage with the said Sunkanna. In support of her version that she and her children are family members of the deceased, she exhibited Ex.X6-Revised Family Members Certificate issued by the competent authority. Having asserted a fact that 1st respondent performed another marriage with the said Sunkanna, which is denied by 1st respondent, the burden heavily lies on the petitioner to establish the same by leading cogent evidence. There is no evidence adduced by the petitioner in support of her contention that 1st respondent did not join the deceased to lead conjugal life and performed another marriage with the said Sunkanna, except her self-serving statement.

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the deceased as a precautionary measure while he was on death bed, executed Ex.A4-Registered Will on 14.08.2005 in favour of petitioner and 1st respondent and the deceased also gave Exs.A2 and A3-Notarized Affidavits before one Rafat, Notary-cum-Advocate at Kurnool stating that 1st respondent had no objection to make the petitioner to be the nominee to the death benefits of the deceased. But, subsequent to death of the deceased, 1st respondent took contrary plea claiming right over the death benefits of the deceased.

18. To substantiate Ex.A4-Will, the petitioner examined herself as P.W1 and one of the attestors of the Will, as P.W2. A perusal of the evidence of P.W2 also goes to show that petitioner is second wife of the deceased Thirupalu and it is her second marriage and that, he does not know with whom her first marriage was performed. Further, from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is clear that the scribe and the attestor to Ex.A4-Will are no other than relatives of the petitioner. No doubt, Ex.A4-Will is a registered one.

                  The deceased, testator of Ex.A4-Will did not bequeath any assets in favour of the petitioner under the said Will, and it is only his Death- cum-Retirement Benefits that are bequeathed in favour of the petitioner under the alleged Will. Considering the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge found that the relationship between the petitioner and the deceased is not legitimate one, and that the marriage between the deceased and 1st respondent was subsisting. Therefore, what the petitioner is not entitled i.e. Death-cum- Retirement benefits, cannot be claimed by her by way of the alleged Will. Furthermore, it is the evidence of P.W1 that Ex.A4-Registered Will, dated 14.08.2005 was executed by the deceased as a precautionary measure, though he was on death bed. But, as per the counter filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3, no particulars with regard to nominee or family members of the deceased were entered in his Service Register. Therefore, the entire evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is not trustworthy.

19. Above all, during pendency of the appeal, 1st respondent died and to bring the same to the notice of this Court, petitioner filed the Death Certificate of 1st respondent dated 17.09.2011 issued by the Municipal Corporation, Kurnool, wherein, in respect of the column provided for ‘Name of the Husband’, one Y.Thirupalu was mentioned, who is none other than the deceased. If really 1st respondent did not join with the deceased and married with one Sunkanna, the name of Sunkanna might have mentioned in the said Death Certificate.

20. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioner miserably failed to prove her case. The learned trial Judge upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record in right perspective recorded the findings and dismissed the Succession OP filed by the petitioner. This Court does not find any reasons to interfere with the Order, dated 10.08.2011, passed in Succession O.P.No.66 of 2009 by the learned I Additional District Judge, Kurnool.

21. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is Dismissed, confirming the Order, dated 10.08.2011, passed in Succession OP No.66 of 2009 by the learned I Additional District Judge, Kurnool. No costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.