IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 71 OF 2006 Appeal Under Section 384 of Indian Successions Act, aggrieved by the order made in O.P.No.48 of 2003 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Rajahmundry, and I preferring the above C.M.A. against the order in O.P.No.48 of 2003 dated 29.04.2004. Between: Mugula Rajeswari Nooka Ratnam, W/o late M.Venkata Nageswara Rao, Aged 33 years, Hindu, D.No. 23-21-33/1, 0pp. Durga Temple, Lalitha Nagar, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. Mugula Venkata Sai Durga Prasad, S/o late M.V.Nageswara Rao, Aged 6 years, minor rep. by M.R.Nooka Ratnam - mother - Pet. No.1. D.No. 23-21-33/1, 0pp. Durga Temple, Lalitha Nagar, Rajahmundry. 1. 2. 3. Mugula Santhoshi Manimala, D/o late M.Venkata Nageswara Rao, Aged 4 years, minor rep. by M.R.Nooka Ratnam -1st Appe. [mother .] D.No. 23-21-33/1, 0pp. Durga Temple, Lalitha Nagar, Rajahmundry. 4. Mugula Venkata Rattnam, M/o late M.Venkata Nageswara Rao, Aged 80 years, D.No. 23-21-33/1, 0pp. Durga Temple, Lalitha Nagar, Rajahmundry. (Appellant No.4 is not necessary party) ...Appellants/Petitioners AND 1. Moogula Rajeswari, claimed be the wife of M.V.Nageswara Rao, Aged 38 years, Hindu, C/o Pendyal Surya Kantham, Kuuyyuru Village, Kazaluru Mandal. 2. The General Manager, Telecom District, East Godavari District at Kothagudem, Rajahmundry. ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellants: SRI M. RAVINDRANATH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI G KRISHNA MURTHY SRI T BALA JAYASRI Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI BOKK SATYANARAYANA The Court made the following ORDER: 1 APHC010321832006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 71/2006 Between; Mugula Rajeswari Nooka Ratnam And 3 Others and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND ...RESPONDENT{S) Moogula Rajeswari And Another and Others Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1.M RAVINDRANATH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1.T BALA JAYASRI 2.G KRISHNA MURTHY 3.BOKKASATYANARAYANA KAMLA The Court made the following; 2 /' THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No:71/2006 ORDER: The present Appeal is filed under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act questioning the Order dated 29.09.2004 in O.P.No.48 of 2003 filed under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1975, to declare the Petitioners herein as the successors of Late M.V. Nageswara Rao. Brief facts of the case are as follows; 2. The Petitioner No.1 claims to be the legally wedded wife of late M.V. Nageswara Rao, who died on 14.08.2002. The Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the son and daughter and the Petitioner No.4 is the mother of late M.V. Nageswara Rao. The said M.V. Nageswara Rao had worked as Telephone Mechanic in the Telecom Department at Donkarai. While so, the Petitioner No.1 had married the deceased No.1 at Pitapuram on 18.06.1997 as per the Hindu Religion Rites and Customs. The Respondent No.1 claimed to have married the deceased Nageswara Rao and had children to him. It was pleaded that late Nageswara Rao had executed a document of Settlement on 4.11.1998 whereunder the tiled house at Kotipalli Village and cash of Rs.30,000/- was gifted away to the respondent No.1. 3 3. It is the case of the Petitioners that they are entitled to succeed to the death benefits of late Nageswara Rao. The Respondent No.1 filed her Counter Affidavit claiming that she was the legally wedded wife of the deceased and that their marriage was performed on 11.05.1996 at Mukteswaram and they have a daughter and son namely Venkata Ratna Sailaja and Venkata Naresh, who were born out of their wedlock. Due to the bad vices of the 4, deceased Nageswara Rao, the Respondent No.1 and her two children were living at Mukteswaram with her father and brothers and therefore they are legally entitled to succeed the death benefits of the deceased Nageswara Rao. 5. In the course of trial, Pws. 1 to 4 were examined and Exs. A.1 to A. 11 were marked on behalf of the Petitioners. However, neither witnesses nor documents were marked on behalf of the Respondents. 6. The trial Court dismissed the said OP as the Petitioners had failed to establish that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Nageswara Rao. Hence, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 7. Heard Sri T. Ramakoteswara Rao, learned counsel, representing Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy, learned counsel for the Appellants, and Ms. Neelima, learned counsel for the Respondents. 4 The undisputed fact is that the Respondent No.1 is legally 8. wedded wife of late Nageswara Rao and there was no divorce between the Respondent No.1 and the deceased Nageswara Rao. The second undisputed fact is that the Petitioner No.1 is the second wife of the deceased and the marriage was performed during the subsistence of the first marriage. The third undisputed fact is that the Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are children of the deceased through Petitioner No.1. Having regard to the admitted facts, the only issue that falls for 9. consideration is: “ Whether the Petitioners are entitled to declare as Legal Heirs of the deceased Nageswara Rao”. The Petitioner No.1 being second wife would not be entitled to a 10. share. However, Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are entitled to a share therein as the death benefits are self earnings of the deceased as per Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The mother of the deceased is also entitled to a share being a Class-1 heir. Therefore, the Order and the Decree of the trial Court is partly set 11. aside and allowed to the extent of the Petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4, who are declared to be the legal heirs of the deceased along with the Respondent No.1 and her children. The death benefits shall be apportioned equally to the named Claimants. 5 12. With the above observation, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand dismissed as infructuous. Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTTON OFFICER To, 1. The I Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, (with records if any) 2. The General Manager, Telecom District, Kothagudem, Rajahmundry. 3. One CC to Sri M Ravindranath Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri G Krishna Murthy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri T Bala Jayasri, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri Bokka Satyanarayana, Advocate [OPUC] 7. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. 8. Three CD Copies SD sree HIGH COURT DATED:07/01/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE CMA.No.71 of 2006 X 0 3 MAR 2125 . Current Section ^ - O' irl Co 'ty' DISPOSING THE C.M.A. WITHOUT COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 71 OF 2006 Between: 1. Mugula Rajeswari Nooka Ratnam, W/o late M.Venkata Nageswara Rao, Aged 33 years, Hindu, D.No. 23-21-33/1, 0pp. Durga Temple, Lalitha Nagar, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 2. Mugula Venkata Sai Durga Prasad, S/o late M.V.Nageswara Rao, Aged 6 years, minor rep. by M.R.Nooka Ratnam - mother - Pet. No.1. D.No. 23-21-33/1, 0pp. Durga Temple, Lalitha Nagar, Rajahmundry. 3. Mugula Santhoshi Manimala, D/o late M.Venkata Nageswara Rao, Aged 4 years, minor rep. by M.R.Nooka Ratnam -1st Appe. [mother .] D.No. 23-21-33/1, 0pp. Durga Temple, Lalitha Nagar, Rajahmundry. 4. Mugula Venkata Rattnam, M/o late M.Venkata Nageswara Rao, Aged 80 years, D.No. 23-21-33/1, 0pp. Durga Temple, Lalitha Nagar, Rajahmundry. (Appellant No.4 is not necessary party) ...Appellants/Petitioners AND 1. Moogula Rajeswari, claimed be the wife of M.V.Nageswara Rao, Aged 38 years, Hindu, C/o Pendyal Surya Kantham, Kuuyyuru Village, Kazaluru Mandal. 2. The General Manager, Telecom District, East Godavari District at Kothagudem, Rajahmundry. ...Respondents « Appeal Under Section 384 of Indian Successions Act, aggrieved by the order made in O.P.No.48 of 2003 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Rajahmundry, and I preferring the above C.M.A. against the order in O.P.No.48 of 2003 dated 29.04.2004. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri G. Krishna Murthy, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 and Sri T. Bala Jayasri and of Sri Bokka Satyanarayana, Advocate for Respondent No.2 This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1. That the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is hereby disposed of and no order as to costs. 2. Here for, the Order and the Decree of the Trial Court is partly set-aside and allowed to the extent of the Petitioner Nos.2,3 and 4, who declared to be the legal heirs of the deceased along with the Respondent No.1 and her children. The death benefits shall be apportioned equally to the named claimants. are Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT .REGISTRA^R //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER ) 1. The I Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, (with records if any) 2. The General Manager, Telecom District, Kothagudem, Rajahmundry. 3. Three CD Copies To SD sree high court DATED:07/01/2025 DECREE CMA.No.71 of 2006 5 ® 3 MAR 2025 ^ ^Cuirwisecnoi,^'^ DISPOSING THE C.M.A. WITHOUT COSTS