MALDI REDDY S Vs. M RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against an order passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool dated 8-7-1998 in E.A. No.420 of 1994 in E.P. No.181 of 1990 inO.S.No.428 of 1983.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioners are said to be the grandsons of S. Maldi Reddy and that S. Maldi Reddy was executing the decree for recovery of money against the respondent and he had brought the E.P. schedule lands for sale on 4-7-1994 and since their grandfather died after executing a Will dated 28-12-1987 bequeathing all his properties, including the amounts in bank and also decrees and registered the same on 31-12-1987 they are entitled to come on record as legal representatives of the deceased Maldi Reddy. The application to bring on record the petitioners as legal representatives of the deceased Maldi Reddy was resisted by the respondent judgment-debtor staring that the petitioners are put to strict proof of the execution of the Will by the deceased Maldi Reddy and the petitioners have not filed the succession certificate or letters of probate and without production of succession certificate or letters of probate the application to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased is not maintainable. The Court below had dismissed the application and posted the execution petition giving opportunity to bring all legal representatives in the place of the deceased decreeholder. The Court below had recorded that there is no dispute about the proposition of law that when the E.P. is pending on the death of the decreeholder obtaining succession certificate is not necessary to bring the legal representatives on record. But however at Para 7 the Court below observed as follows:

(3.) Sri S. Laxminarayana Reddy, learned Counsel for the revision petitioners had contended that the approach of the Court below is totally erroneous inasmuch as there is no necessity of obtaining the probate relating to a Will executed by deceased Maldi Reddy who belonged to Kurnool District in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The learned Counsel for the petitioners for this proposition had relied upon a decision in A.S. Murthy vs. D.V.S.S. Murthy wherein the Division Bench was pleased to observe that Section 213 (2) of the Indian Succession Act excludes Wills executed by persons residing in the State of Andhra Pradesh in respect of the properties situated in Andhra Pradesh and hence even without probate or letters of administration the legatees are entitled to establish their rights relating to the dispute. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also had relied upon decisions in M. Narayana vs. M. Suryakanthani; Rohini vs. All Concerned.