Skip to content


Kadur Ramchandram Vs. Kadur Seetamma - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAndhra Pradesh
Decided On
Judge
Reported in143Ind.Cas.883
AppellantKadur Ramchandram
RespondentKadur Seetamma
Excerpt:
.....succession certificate act (iii of 1307 fasli), section 16 - application for revocation of succession certificate--dismissal of appeal, if lies--remedy against order. - motor vehicles act (59 of 1988)section 149 (2): [v. gopala gowda & jawad rahim, jj] insurers entitlement to defend the action joint appeal by insured and insurer - held, the language employed in enacting sub-section (2) of section 149 appears to be plain and simple and there is no ambiguity in it. it shows that when an insurer is impleaded and has been given notice of the case, it is entitled to defend the action only on grounds enumerated in sub-section (2) of section 149 of the act, and no other grounds are available to it. the insurer is not allowed to contest the claim of the injured or heirs of the deceased.....1. the application for revocation of the succession certificate has been dismissed by the district court, mahbubnagar. the present appeal is preferred against the said order. the question is whether an appeal against such order is competent. the learned pleader for the appellant relies upon section 17 of act no. iii of 1307 fasli (the hyderabad succession certificate act). but from the wording of the section it is clear (?) the right of appeal is given to a party aggrieved against the order granting the application for revocation and not when the (application is refused. vide, raghunath v. venkat anna 3 d.l.r. 540 in this connection. the pleader for the appellant has also cited manchharam v. kalidas 19 b. 821. there is no specific decision on the point in the said case rather the.....
Judgment:

1. The application for revocation of the succession certificate has been dismissed by the District Court, Mahbubnagar. The present appeal is preferred against the said order. The question is whether an appeal against such order is competent. The learned Pleader for the appellant relies upon Section 17 of Act No. III of 1307 Fasli (The Hyderabad Succession Certificate Act). But from the wording of the section it is clear (?) the right of appeal is given to a party aggrieved against the order granting the application for revocation and not when the (application is refused. Vide, Raghunath v. Venkat Anna 3 D.L.R. 540 in this connection. The Pleader for the appellant has also cited Manchharam v. Kalidas 19 B. 821. There is no specific decision on the point in the said case rather the revisional powers of the High Court have been resorted to. At any rate the tenor of the present Act seems to be that the appropriate remedy against such an order is not by way of appeal. However, in view of the facts of the case, we deem it proper to exercise our revisional power and vary the order of the court below. The court below ought to have passed orders after hearing the objection of the petitioner. It is not correct to refuse the application on the ground that the applicant ought to have obtained the succession certificate can be revoked on sufficient grounds. The only question to decide is whether the grounds advanced are tenable for which an enquiry will have to be held. Hence the appeal is dismissed; but in the exercise of our revisional power our order is that the case will go back to the lower court for inquiry as directed above.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //