APHC010105392019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS SECOND Between: 1. G. DHANALAKSHMI, W/O LATE P.JAYARAMAN, HINDU, AGED 44 YEARS, R/O D.NO.4 AND VILLAGE, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DIST. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE. 1. G MOHAN BABU, S/O LATE P. 40 YEARS, R/O DIGUVAKAMMAPALLI, MANDANAPALLI, CHITTOOR DIST- ANDHRA PRADESH 2. G SURESH BABU, S/O LATE P.JAYARAMAN HINDU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O D.NO.10 CHITTOOR DISTRICT 3. THE CHIEF MANA 290, GANDHI ROAD, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. the Judgment and Decree dated 21.01.2019 passed in A.S.No.92 of 2015 on the file of the X Additional District Judge Court, Tirupathi in modifying the Order and Decree dated 30.05.2015 in S.O.P No.42 of 2013 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge Court at Tirupathi, IA NO: 1 OF 2019 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO: 1 OF G. DHANALAKSHMI, W/O LATE P.JAYARAMAN, HINDU, AGED 44 YEARS, R/O D.NO.4-55, JANARDHANA COLONY, PERURU POST AND VILLAGE, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DIST. ANDHRA PRADESH ...APPELLANT AND G MOHAN BABU, S/O LATE P. JAYARAMAN, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O DIGUVAKAMMAPALLI, MANDANAPALLI, CHITTOOR ANDHRA PRADESH G SURESH BABU, S/O LATE P.JAYARAMAN HINDU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O D.NO.10-8, NALANDA NAGAR, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT THE CHIEF MANAGER INDIAN BANK TIRUPATHI, BRANCH CODE 290, GANDHI ROAD, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): the Judgment and Decree dated 21.01.2019 passed in A.S.No.92 of 2015 on the file of the X Additional District Judge Court, Tirupathi in modifying he Order and Decree dated 30.05.2015 in S.O.P No.42 of 2013 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge Court at Tirupathi, IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA OF 2019 G. DHANALAKSHMI, W/O LATE P.JAYARAMAN, HINDU, AGED 44 55, JANARDHANA COLONY, PERURU POST AND VILLAGE, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DIST. ANDHRA PRADESH ...APPELLANT JAYARAMAN, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O DIGUVAKAMMAPALLI, MANDANAPALLI, CHITTOOR G SURESH BABU, S/O LATE P.JAYARAMAN HINDU, AGED ABOUT 8, NALANDA NAGAR, TIRUPATHI, GER INDIAN BANK TIRUPATHI, BRANCH CODE 290, GANDHI ROAD, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): the Judgment and Decree dated 21.01.2019 passed in A.S.No.92 of 2015 on the file of the X Additional District Judge Court, Tirupathi in modifying he Order and Decree dated 30.05.2015 in S.O.P No.42 of 2013 on the file of 2 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 dispense with the filing of certified copy of the decree passed in A.s. NO.92/2015, dated 21.01.2019 on the file of the court of Honourable Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi in the above CMSA and pass. IA NO: 2 OF 2019 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 grant stay of all further proceedings including execution of the Judgment and Decree dated 21.01.2019 passed in A.S.No.92 of 2015 on the file of the X Addl. District Judge Court, Tirupathi pending disposal of the Second Appeal and to pass IA NO: 3 OF 2019 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 Respondent No.3/Bank authorities not to dispense the Fixed deposits and S.B amount present in the Respondent No.3 bank bearing 1. Fixed deposit No.6019976761 for Rs.10,98,438/- 2. Fixed deposit No.977888324 for Rs.1,09,427/- 3. S.B Savings A/C No.463823835 for Rs.84,022/- Rs.12,91,887/- An amount of Rupees Twelve Lakhs Ninety One Thousand Eighty Eight hundred (Rs.12,91,887/-) to the Respondents No.1 & 2 herein pending disposal of the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal and to pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SRINIVASA RAO NARRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SATYANARAYANA NIMMALA 2. NARIKAL PRABHAKAR The Court made the following Judgment: The present Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal filed aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment dated 21.01.2019 passed in A.S.No. 92 of 2015 on the file of X Additional District Judge Tirupati (for brevity ‘First Appellate Court’) in 3 modifying the Order and Decree dated 30.05.2015 in S.O.P.No.42 of 2013 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati (for brevity ‘the Trial Court’) 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Courts below. 3. The Respondents No.1 and 2 herein filed a Petition under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act before the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati seeking relief to grant succession certificate in their favour empowering them to receive 2/3rd schedule amounts from the Respondent No.2/ Bank. 4. The precise case is that the Petitioners are the sons of deceased P. Jayaraman through first wife G. Subhadra Devi, who died on 26.10.1999, leaving behind her the Respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. P. Jayaraman as her legal representatives to succeed his estate. After death of G. Subhadra Devi, the deceased P. Jayaraman married one G. Dhanalakshmi i.e Appellant/ Petitioner in the year 2000. However, the deceased was not blessed with any children through second wife i.e Appellant herein. The said P. Jayaraman died on 29.01.2013 leaving behind the Appellant herein and the Respondents No. 1 and 2 as his legal representatives to succeed deceased estate. 5. During the life time of Mr. P. Jayaraman, he has deposited Petition schedule amount with the Respondent No.3/ Bank as Fixed Deposit. The deceased during his last days lived with the Appellant/ Petitioner, taking advantage of the same, the Appellant herein got fixed deposits in collusion 4 with deceased and making hectic efforts to withdraw the said amount. At that stage, the Respondents 1 and 2 filed Succession O.P before the Trial Court. 6. The Respondent No.3/ Bank remained exparte before the Trial Court. 7. The Appellant/ Petitioner filed Counter admitting that the Respondents 1 and 2 are the sons of late P. Jayaraman and that during his last days, she has spent huge amounts towards treatment of the deceased in Ramachandra Hospital, Chennai, which is known to one and all including the Respondents 1 and 2, but the Respondents 1 and 2 with an intention to deceive and defraud the creditors have filed a Petition claiming 2/3rd share in the schedule mentioned amount, though the Appellant/ Petitioner is entitled for half share as she had borrowed huge amounts towards treatment of the deceased. Therefore, the Trial Court held as follows: 10. As contended by the respondent counsel by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court stated supra, wherein it is held that “when once it is held that the respondent is the wife of lat Parandaman and her subsequent re-marriage will not disqualify her from succeeding to the estate of her late husband”. Therefore, in this case also the marriage in between the deceased P. Jayaraman and the first respondent cannot be denied as she has not got any divorce from her first husband. Besides that, the petitioners pleaded that the first respondent is the 2nd wife of the deceased P. Jayaraman and as the 2nd wife of the deceased P. Jayaraman she has attended to the care and custody of the deceased P. Jayaraman in his last days. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, the first respondent as the 2nd wife of the deceased P. Jayaraman, she has got right of succession over the properties shown in the petition schedule amounts. Therefore, as a wife of deceased P. Jayaraman she is entitled half share, whereas 5 the petitioners, who are the sons of deceased Jayaraman, who are having right of half share of the petition schedule amounts. Accordingly, the points are settled. 8. In the instant case also, as the marriage of the deceased P. Jayaraman and the Appellant/ Petitioner cannot be denied as she has not obtained any decree of divorce from her husband. The trial court held that being the second wife, the Appellant/ Petitioner has got a right over half share in the petition schedule. Challenging the said order, the Respondents No.1 and 2 preferred an Appeal vide A.S.No.92 of 2015 on the file of First Appellate Court. The first Appellate Court, while modifying the order of the trial court held as follows: 11….This order was made in accordance with Sec.8, Sec.9 and Sec.10 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve firstly upon the heirs being the relatives specified in Class-I of the Schedule and they shall take simultaneously to the exclusion of all other heirs and Class-I heirs include widow or more widows, surviving sons, daughters, mother and their decedents. The widow was the wife, who was remarried and the other legal-heir was the mother in the above said case, among whom the estate of deceased Paranthaman were divided equally excluding father, who is Class-II heir. The trial Court has failed to consider these provisions and simply by relying upon the common order of Hon’ble High Court of Madras, granted half share to the petitioners 1 and 2 and half share to the first respondent, which is not in accordance with Secs. 8, 9 and 10 of Hindu Succession Act. The petitioners and the first respondent are Class-I heirs and they are entitled to 1/3rd share each in the property of P. Jayaraman. 6 9. Challenging the same, the present Appeal has been preferred on the sole ground that the first Appellate Court failed to consider the evidence of the Appellant/ Petitioner that during last days of the deceased, she looked after the affairs and spent towards medical expenses and also cleared the debts incurred by the deceased. 10. Having perused the order passed by both Trial Court and first Appellate Court. This Court feels to extract Section 8, 9 and 10 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 hereunder for ready reference and for better appreciation of the facts. 8. General rules of succession in the case of males.―The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter:― (a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class I of the Schedule; (b) secondly, if there is no heir of class I, then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class II of the Schedule; (c) thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the two classes, then upon the agnates of the deceased; and (d) lastly, if there is no agnate, then upon the cognates of the deceased. 9. Order of succession among heirs in the Schedule.―Among the heirs specified in the Schedule, those in class I shall take simultaneously and to the exclusion of all other heirs; those in the first entry in class II shall be preferred to those in the second entry; those in the second entry shall be preferred to those in the third entry; and so on in succession. 7 10. Distribution of property among heirs in class I of the Schedule.―The property of an intestate shall be divided among the heirs in class I of the Schedule in accordance with the following rules:― Rule 1.―The intestate’s widow, or if there are more widows than one, all the widows together, shall take one share. Rule 2.―The surviving sons and daughters and the mother of the intestate shall each take one share. Rule 3.―The heirs in the branch of each pre-deceased son or each pre-deceased daughter of the intestate shall take between them one share. Rule 4.―The distribution of the share referred to in Rule 3— (i) among the heirs in the branch of the pre-deceased son shall be so made that his widow (or widows together) and the surviving sons and daughters get equal portions; and the branch of his pre-deceased sons gets the same portion; (ii) among the heirs in the branch of the pre-deceased daughter shall be so made that the surviving sons and daughters get equal portions. 11. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel on both sides and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court opined that the Appellant/ Petitioner has not placed any material before the Court below to show that she has spent towards medical expenses, except filing two medical bills. However, the law is very clear that the Appellant herein as well as Respondents No.1 and 2 are the legal representatives of the deceased 8 who come under Class-I heirs. As such, they are entitled for equal share i.e 1/3rd share as rightly held by the first Appellate Court. 12. In that view, this Court do not find any merit in the Appeal. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 18.02.2026 KK