K.Ashok Babu

IN THE PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Present: K.Ashok Babu Chairman-cum- Prl.District Judge.

Wednesday, the 31 st day of December, 2014.

M.V.O.P. 591/2012

(U/s.166 of the M.V.Act, 1988)

Between:

1.Katta Malathi

2.Katta Nissi Anand

3.Katta Visalakshi ..Petitioners

(P2, being minor, is rep.by P1-mother)

AND

1.Kotapally Sridevi (Owner of lorry No.AP 28Y 0479)

2.The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,

Rep.by its Manager. ..Respondents

Policy No.6280031110100005792, Valid from 01.10.2011 to 30.09.2012. This Original Petition coming up before me for a final hearing on 1.12.2014 in the presence of Mr.P.Jagan Mohan, Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr.N.S.Soma Sunder, Counsel for R2 and R1 having remained ex parte and on a consideration of the material evidence on record and having stood over for consideration till date, this Tribunal has pronounced the following:

JUDGMENT

(U/s.168 of the M.V.Act r/w Rule 471 of the A.P.M.V.Rules, 1989)

Concise Statement of the Case:

Per Petitioners:

On 23.12.2011, while K. R. Mohan Rao was proceeding on his motor cycle, AP 28

TQ TR 8758, from his residence at Bachupally to Miyapur to go over to his office and when he reached near Vikas School, in front of Patel & Co., at Bachupally, at about 5-30

A.M., lorry, AP 28 Y 0479, driven by its driver rashly, negligently and at a high speed, hit his motor cycle from his behind, causing his fall on to the road and rear tyres of the lorry ran over his body, causing him injuries and death on the spot, concerning Cr.No.633/2011 under Sec.304-A IPC of P.S.Dundigal, against the driver of the offending lorry.

2. Prior to the accident, K.R.Mohan Rao was aged about 33 years, hale, healthy and working as a Medical Transcriptionist in Transdyne IT Solutions Pvt.Ltd., Hyderabad, on a monthly salary of Rs.16,500/- including incentives, which he used to contribute for maintenance and welfare of his family but due to his untimely demise, P1-widow, P2- 2 minor son and P3-mother, lost his earnings, love, affection, care, estate, etc. So, they have claimed a compensation of Rs.32 lakh with interest @ 12% p.a from R1-owner and R2- insurer on all counts.

Per R1:

3. Since R1-owner has preferred to remain ex parte, R2-insurer was permitted under

Sec.170 of the M.V.Act to take all the defences, as are available to the insured, by order dt.26.07.2014 in I.A.No.2183/2013.

Per R2:

4. Denying rashness, negligence, high speed driving by the driver of Lorry, AP 28 Y 0479, on 23.12.2011 at about 5.30 A.M and its hitting K.R.Mohan Rao, causing grievous injuries to him and death on the spot; disputing his age, occupation, income and involvement of lorry, AP 28 Y 0479, in the alleged accident, validity of its insurance and the driving licence of its driver and attributing contributory negligence to K.R.Mohan Rao,

R2 has contended that it is not liable to pay any compensation, much less a compensation of Rs.32 lakh, as claimed by the petitioners.

Recast Issue for Determination:

4. ‘Whether the petitioners are entitled to a compensation of Rs.32,00,000/- from R1- owner and R2-insurer for causing the death of K.R Mohan Rao in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 23.12.2011 at about 5-30 A.M in front of Patel Company, Near

Vikas School, Bachupally, Quthbullapur, Cyberabad, due to rash, negligent and high speed driving of lorry, AP 28 Y 0479, by its driver ?’

Appreciation of Evidence:

5. I have carefully appreciated the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and the documentary evidence in Exs.A1 to A8 for the petitioners and Ex.B1 for R2 in the light of written submissions filed by the learned Counsel for both sides, as discussed in detail, in the following:- 3

Reasons for Findings:

6. The circumstantial evidence of PW1-widow that on 23.12.2011 at about 5-30 A.M., while her husband was proceeding on his motor cycle, AP 28 TQ TR 8758, from their residence at Bachupally to Miyapur to go over to his office and when he reached near

Vikas School in front of Patel & Co. at Bachupally, lorry, AP 28 Y 0479, driven by its driver rashly, negligently and at a high speed, hit her husband’s motor cycle from his behind, causing his fall on to the road and rear tyres of the lorry ran over his body, causing him severe bleeding injuries and death on the spot, is corroborated by the unchallenged public documentary evidence in Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-Inquest panchanama,

Ex.A3-Post-mortem report, Ex.A4-MVI’s report, Ex.A5-Crime Details Form along with a sketch map of the scene of offence panchanama and Ex.A6-Charge Sheet and eye witness’s testimony of PW2.

7. As testified by PW2, on 23.12.2011 at about 5-30 A.M, while he was proceeding on his motor cycle from Bachupaly to Miyapur and when he reached near Vikas School in front of Patel & Co. at Bachupally, suddenly one lorry, AP 28 Y 0479, driven by its driver rashly, negligently and at a high speed overtook him and hit the motor cycle of the deceased, who was proceeding in front of him, from his behind, causing him multiple injuries and death on the spot.

8. The evidence of PWs.1 & 2 is further corroborated by the investigation made by the

Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Dundigal, according to which, A.Satyanarayana, driver of lorry,

AP 28 Y 0479, drove it so rashly, negligently and hit the motor cycle of A.R.Mohan Rao from his behind and when he fell down the rear wheels of the lorry ran over his body, causing him bleeding injuries and death on the spot, for which, the driver

A.Satyanarayana was charge sheeted for an offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC.

That was how, the Asst.MVI, RTI, Medchal, opined in Ex.A4 that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the crime lorry.

4

9. No doubt the learned Counsel for R2 has relied on a decision of the High Court of

Andhra Pradesh in National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Ch.Vijaya Lakshmi (1987 (2) ALT 193 DB) to contend that Sec.53 of the E.S.I Act clearly bars the remedy of compensation or damages payable under any statutory enactment as also under the Law of Torts or the

Common Law from the purview of the Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act in case of death or injury to an employee covered by the E.S.I Act, in view of subsequent decision of the High Court of A.P.in the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., v. G.Nagaraju (MACMA

No.1834/2012 allowed on 16.6.2014, wherein it was held that since the injuries suffered by the claimant were not in the course of the employment, they could not be treated as employment injuries as defined under the E.S.I Act and the claimant was not entitled to receive any compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act unless he refunds the entire amount received by him to the E.S.I Corporation and that the OP under the M.V.Act was not barred under Sec.53 of the E.S.I Act and he can get compensation under the M.V.Act only subject to his refunding the amount received by him from the E.S.I Corporation back to it and P1 to P3 having not claimed or received any benefit from the E.S.I Corporation for the death of K.R.Mohan Rao, the OP filed by them under the M.V.Act is very much maintainable.

9. No rebuttal evidence having been adduced by R2-insurer in disproof of there not being any rashness, negligence or high speed driving on the part of the driver-

A.Satyanarayana of lorry, AP 28 Y 0479, which hit A.R.Mohan Rao, causing him grievous injuries and death on the spot, the defence pleaded by R2-insurer in the counter about there being any contributory negligence on the part of K.R.Mohan Rao, is not substantiated.

10. Since the accident had occurred on 23.12.2011 during the subsistence of Ex.B1-

Insurance Policy valid from 01.10.2011 to 30.09.2012, R2-insurer is liable to indemnify R1- owner by depositing the compensation, as is being determined in the following paragraphs:- 5

Compensation:

Age:

11. The date of birth of A.R.Mohan Rao having been mentioned as 20-5-1978 in Ex.A8-

SSC Memo, he was aged 33 years 7 months 3 days as on the date of his death on 23.12.2011, which could safely be relied on for applicability of multiplier `16’ for the persons in the age group of 31 to 35 years, as per column No.(4) of the Multiplier Table approved by the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA V. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION (2009 ACJ 1298).

Income:

12. As testified by PW1, her husband was working as Medical Transcriptionist in

Transdyne IT Solutions Pvt.Ltd., Hyderabad, on a monthly salary of Rs.16,500/- including incentives but according to PW3-M.Shravan Kumar, Sr.HR.Executive of the Company, the total earnings of K.R.Mohan Rao were Rs.17,006/-, from which, his saving contribution towards PF was Rs.222/- and ESI was Rs.298/-. Except professional tax of Rs.150/-, which was not refundable to him, his take home salary was Rs.16,336/- and CTC was Rs.18067/-.

Leaving non-refundable professional tax of Rs.150/- p.m, his earnings could safely be taken as Rs.16,856/-p.m and Rs.2,02,272/- per annum, to which a sum of Rs.1,01,136/- p.a, being 50% of his salary, should be added towards future prospects as K.R.Mohan Rao was a permanent employee and his total earnings works out to Rs.3,03,408/- p.a.

13. Had K.R.Mohan Rao been alive, he would have spent 1/3 rd (Rs.1,01,136/-) of his income (Rs. 3,03,408/- p.a X 1/3 = Rs.1,01,136/- p.a) for his personal and living expenses and contributed 2/3 rd (Rs.2,02,272/- p.a) of it (Rs.3,03,408 X 2/3=Rs.2,02,272/-) for his family comprising P1 to P3 but due to his untimely demise, they lost his earnings of Rs.32,36,352/- (Rs.2,02,272/- p.a X 16 multiplier = Rs.32,36,352/-). So, they are entitled to a compensation of Rs.32,36,352/- towards loss of dependency.

15. In addition to the compensation awarded to P1 to P3 in para 13, P1 is entitled to a compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of his consortium and P1 to P3 are entitled 6 to another compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of his love, affection, estate, etc., and Rs.20,000/- towards funeral expenses.

In all, P1 to P3 are entitled to a compensation of Rs.33,56,352/- from R1 & R2 but 13.

indemnifiable by R2 with simple interest, as indicated in the award.

Award:

To sum up, the O.P is allowed with costs, awarding a compensation of 14.

Rs.33,56,352/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakh Fifty Six Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty

Two only), subject to payment of deficit Court Fee on the enhanced compensation, with simple interest @ Rs.9% per annum from date of filing of the O.P on 25.7.2012 till date of realization from R1 but directing R2 to deposit the entire compensation amount together with the interest thereon within 30 days from date of the award and ordering apportionment and disbursement of it as follows:

Apportionment:

Out of the total compensation amount of Rs. 33,56,352/-, P1 is entitled to a 13.

compensation of Rs.13,00,000/-; P2-minor is entitled to a compensation of

Rs.12,50,000/- and P3-mother is entitled to a compensation of

Rs.8,06,352/-.Withdrawal & Investment:

On such a deposit being made, P3-mother is permitted to withdraw her entire 14.

share of compensation of Rs.8,06,352/- together with the interest thereon forthwith; P1 is permitted to withdraw half of her compensation of Rs.6,50,000 together with the interest thereon and the balance share of her compensation and the compensation payable to

P2-minor, be invested in a fixed deposit in a Nationalized/Scheduled Bank, initially for a period of 3 years, renewable from time to time till P2 attains majority or till the need ceases, as the case may be, permitting P1 to withdraw periodical interest on her share and the share of P2-minor, from time to time, for his upbringing, maintenance, education, etc, till P2 attains his majority.

Fee:

7

Counsel's fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-. 15.

(Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I, corrected and pronounced by me in the

Open Tribunal on this the 31 st day of December , 2014.)

CHAIRMAN-CUM-PRL.DIST.JUDGE,

PRL.MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS: FOR

RESPONDENTS:

PW1 - K.Malathi (P1) Nil PW2 - S.Nagaraju (eye witness) PW3 – M. Shravan Kumar (Employer of deceased)

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS:

Ex.A1 - CC of FIR along with complaint in CC.No.633/2011 of P.S.Dundigal Ex.A2 – CC of Inquest Panchanama Ex.A3 – CC of PME Report Ex.A4 – CC of MVI Report Ex.A5 – CC of Crime Details Form along with sketch map of scene of offence Ex.A6 – CC of Charge Sheet Ex.A7 – Pay Slip of the deceased Ex.A8 – Xerox copy of SSC Memo of the deceased

FOR RESPONDENTS:

Ex.B1 – Insurance Policy

CHAIRMAN-CUM-PRL.DIST.JUDGE,

PRL.MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

IN THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT

Present: K.Ashok Babu, Prl. District Judge.

Tuesday, the 23 rd day of December, 2014.

O.S.No.450/2014

(U/O VII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code)

Between:

1. N.Pandarinath

2. N.Jyothindranath

3. N.Rajendranath

4. M.Vedavathi

5. K.Geetavathi ...Plaintiffs

AND

1. M.Srinivas Reddy

2. All concerned …Defendants

This Original Suit coming up before me for a final hearing on 09.12.2014 in the presence of Mr.V.Ranga Reddy, Counsel for the Plaintiffs, Mr.Ch.Uma Shankar, Counsel for D1, none having appeared for D2 and on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, this Court has pronounced the following:-

JUDGMENT

(U/O XX Rule 4(2) C.P.C.)

Preamble:

P1 to P5 have filed the suit on hand for declaring them as the legal heirs of

N.Shashikala, who demised on 21.05.2003 intestate, leaving behind her the suit scheduled property.

Per Plaintiffs:

2. While P1 is the husband, P2 & P3 are the sons and P4 & P5 are the daughters of N.shashikala. They aver that during the life time of N.Shashikala, she purchased the suit scheduled property under a Regd.Sale Deed No.9220/1981 dt.21.12.1981 and after her demise on 21.05.2003 intestate, they, being her surviving legal heirs, have been in physical possession and enjoyment over it.

4. While so, on 25.4.2013 when the plaintiffs approached the MRO,

Saroornagar, for issuance of a legal heir certificate, the MRO refused to give it on the ground that he has no jurisdiction and taking advantage of the situation, D1, who is in no way concerned with the suit property, tried to interfere with their possession on 20.2.2014, which was, however, thwarted by them, driving them to file the suit on hand.

PDJ 2

Per D1:

5. D1 filed a counter contending, inter alia, that he is in no way concerned with the suit scheduled property, that he never interfered with the possession of the plaintiffs over it on 20.02.2014 and that he has no objection for decreeing the suit.

Per D2:

5. Though a notice was published to `All concerned’ in ‘Andhra Jyothi,

Dilsukhnagar Zone’ on 23.04.2014, calling upon them to appear before the Court on 1.5.2014, if they have any objection whatsoever but none has appeared to oppose the suit and, thus, they remained ex parte.

Evidence:.

7. In order to substantiate the suit claim, P1 has examined himself as PW1 and relied on the documentary evidence obtaining in Exs.A1 to A8.

Point for Determination:

8. Whether P1 to P5 are entitled to a declaration that they are the legal heirs of N.Shashikala, who demised on 21.05.2003 intestate, leaving behind her the suit scheduled property and P1 to P5 to inherit it ?

Reasons for Decision:

9. As testified by P1 as PW1, his wife-N.Shashikala was the absolute owner and possessor of the suit scheduled property but her, having demised on 21.05.2003 intestate, P1 to P5, being the surviving legal heirs, inherited it, as corroborated by the unchallenged documentary evidence obtaining in Ex.A1-Sale Deed in the name of N.Shashikala; Ex.A2-Death Certificate about her death on 21.05.2003;

Ex.A3-Birth Certificate of P3; Ex.A4-Birth Certificate of P2; Ex.A5-SSC Certificate of

P5 and Ex.A8-Family Members Certificate, which do prove that P1 to P5 are the only surviving legal heirs of N.Shashikala.

3

10. So, P1 to P5 are entitled to be declared as the legal heirs of N.Shashikala, who demised on 21.05.2003 intestate, leaving behind her the suit scheduled property, which they inherited by intestate succession.

Decision :

11. For the foregoing reasons, the suit is decreed but without costs, declaring P1 to P5 as the legal heirs of N.Shashikala.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-Gr.I, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court today, the 23 rd day of December, 2014)

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants:

PW1 –N.Rajendranath, P1 NIL

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants:

Ex.A1 – CC of Sale Deed No.9220/1981, dt.21.12.1981 NIL Ex.A2 – Death Certificate of N.Shashikala issued by L.B.Nagar Municipality dt.11.12.2013 Ex.A3 – CC of Birth Certificate dt.5.11.1997 of P3 Ex.A4 – CC of Birth Certificate dt.25.03.1999 of P2 Ex.A5 – SSC Certificate dt.07.09.1980 of P5 Ex.A6 – Attested copy of representation dt.25.04.2014 to the MRO, Hayathnagar Ex.A7 – Original Market Value Certificate dt.10.02.2014 Ex.A8 - Attested copy of Ration Card

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT.

s 4

IN THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT

Present: K.Ashok Babu, Prl. District Judge.

Thursday, the 11 th day of December, 2014.

O.S.No.1119/2014

(U/O VII Rule 1 r /w Sec.26

of the Civil Procedure Code)

Between:

1. Chandramouli

2. Krishna Deshpande

3. Ram Deshpande ...Plaintiffs

AND

1. All concerned

2. The Tahsildar

3. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation …Defendants

This Original Suit coming up before me for a final hearing on 27.11.2014 in the presence of Mr.K.Rama Subba Rao, Counsel for the Plaintiffs and none having appeared for the defendants and on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, this Court has pronounced the following:-

JUDGMENT

(U/O XX Rule 4(2) C.P.C.)

Preamble:

P1 to P3 have filed the suit on hand for declaring them as the legal heirs of

Vanamala, who demised on 05.05.2014 intestate, leaving behind her the suit scheduled property.

Per Plaintiffs:

2. While P1 is the husband, P2 & P3 are the sons of Vanamala. They aver that, during the life time of Vanamala, she purchased the suit schedule property under a

Regd.Sale Deed No.3852/1997 from Puntikura Shobha and constructed a house thereon after obtaining permission from the municipal authorities and numbered

as 8-07-89/20/1, Chaitanyanagar, Karmanghat.

4. While so, after the demise of Vanamala on 05.05.2014, when the plaintiffs approached D2-Tahsildar, Saroornagar Mandal, for issuance of a Family Member

Certificate for mutation of their names in the records of D3-GHMC, he rejected their request on the ground that the deceased was not a Government Employee, driving them to file the suit on hand.

Per Defendants:

PDJ 2

5. Though notices were served on D2 & D3 and another notice was published to `whomsoever it may concern’ in ‘Eenadu, L.B.Nagar Edition’ on 30.10.2014, calling upon them to appear before the Court on 20.11.2014, none has appeared to oppose the suit and thus, they remained ex parte.

Evidence:.

7. In order to substantiate the suit claim, 1 st plaintiff has examined himself as

PW1 and relied on the documentary evidence obtaining in Exs.A1 to A10.

Point for Determination:

8. Whether P1 to P3 are entitled to a declaration that they are the legal heirs of Vanamala, who demised on 05.05.2014 intestate, leaving behind her the suit scheduled property and P1 to P3 to inherit it ?

Reasons for Decision:

9. As testified by 1 st plaintiff as PW1, his wife-Vanamala was the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property but her having demised on 05.05.2014 intestate, P1 to P3, being the surviving legal heirs, inherited it, as corroborated by the unchallenged documentary evidence obtaining in Ex.A7-Sale Deed & Ex.A8-

Property Tax Assessment Order in the name of Vanamala; Ex.A1-Death Certificate about death of Vanamala on 5.5.2014, Ex.A2-Aadhar Card issued to her, Ex.A3-

Aadhar Card issued to her husband/P1, Ex.A4-Aadhar Card issued to their son/P2,

Ex.A5-Aadhar Card issued to their another son/P3 and Ex.A6-Household Card of

P3, which do prove that P1 to P3 are the only surviving legal heirs of Vanamala.

10. So, P1 to P3 are entitled to be declared as the legal heirs of Vanamala, who demised on 05.05.2014, leaving behind her the suit schedule property, to which they succeeded by intestate succession.

Decision :

11. For the foregoing reasons, the suit is decreed but without costs, declaring P1 to P3 as the legal heirs of Vanamala.

3 (Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-Gr.I, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court today, the 11 th day of December, 2014)

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants:

PW1 –Chandramouli, P1 NIL

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants:

Ex.A1 – Death Certificate of Vanamala dt.28.6.2014 NIL issued by GHMC Ex.A2 – Aadhar Card of Vanamala Ex.A3 – Aadhar Card of P1 Ex.A4 – Aadhar Card of P2 Ex.A5 – Aadhar Card of P3 Ex.A6 – House Hold Card Ex.A7 – Original Sale Deed dt.03.09.1997 Ex.A8 - Property Tax Assessment Order dt.11.6.2004 Ex.A9 – Market Value Certificate dt.02.08.2014 Ex.A10-Endorsement of the Tahsildar, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District.

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT.

s

IN THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT

Present: K.Ashok Babu, Prl. District Judge.

Wednesday, the 31 st day of December, 2014.

O.S.No.1212/2014

(U/O VII Rule 1 & 2 r /w Sec.26

of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908)

Between:

1. Tirunagari Apuroopa

2. Tirunagari Alankrutha ...Plaintiffs

AND

1. K.Yashodhara

2. All concerned …Defendants

This Original Suit coming up before me for a final hearing on 15.12.2014 in the presence of Mr.E.S.Vara Prasad, Counsel for the Plaintiffs and none having appeared for the defendants and on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, this Court has pronounced the following:-

JUDGMENT

(U/O XX Rule 4(2) C.P.C.)

Preamble:

P1 & P2 have filed the suit on hand for declaring them as the legal heirs of

T.Srinivas and T.Anuradha, who demised on 27.06.2014 and 22.11.2011 respectively, intestate, leaving behind them the suit scheduled property.

Per Plaintiffs:

2. While P1 is the elder daughter, P2 is the younger daughter of T.Srinivas and

T.Anuradha. They aver that during the life time of their parents, they jointly purchased the suit scheduled property under a regd.sale deed No.6819/2002 and after their demised intestate, P1 & P2 have remained as the only surviving legal heirs to inherit the self acquired property of their parents but D1, who is the maternal grandmother of P1 & P2, has been claiming it as a co-percenary and objecting for mutation of their names, driving them to file the suit on hand.

Per Defendants:

5. Though a notice was served on D1 and another notice was published to `All Concerned’ in ‘Janatha’ local edition, calling upon them to appear before the

Court on 08.12.2014, none has appeared to oppose the suit and thus, they remained ex parte.

Evidence:.

PDJ 2

7. In order to substantiate the suit claim, P1 has examined herself as PW1 and relied on the documentary evidence obtaining in Exs.A1 to A8.

Point for Determination:

8. Whether P1 & P2 are entitled to a declaration that they are the legal heirs of T.Srinivas and T.Anuradha, who demised on 27.06.2014 and 22.11.2011 respectively, intestate, leaving behind them the suit scheduled property and P1 &

P2 to inherit it ?

Reasons for Decision:

9. As testified by P1 as PW1 that their father-T.Srinivas and mother-T.Anuradha, were the absolute owners and possessors of the suit scheduled property but they having demised intestate, P1 & P2, being the surviving legal heirs, inherited it, is corroborated by the unchallenged documentary evidenceobtaining in

Ex.A3-Regd.Sale Deed No.6819/2002 dt.3.8.2002 and Ex.A4-Statement of

Encumbrance on property in the name of T.Srinivas and T.Anuradha; Ex.A1-Death

Certificate about the death of T.Srinivas on 27.06.2014 and Ex.A2-Death Certificate about the death of T.Anuradha; Ex.A6-Adhar Card of P1, Ex.P7-Aadhar Card of P2 and Ex.A8-Household Card showing the names of P1 & P2 as the daughters of

T.Srinivas and T.Anuradha, which do prove that P1 & P2 are the only surviving legal heirs of T.Srinivas and T.Anuradha.

10. So, P1 & P2 are entitled to be declared as the legal heirs of T.Srinivas and

T.Anuradha, who demised on 27.6.2014 and 22.11.2011, respectively, intestate, leaving behind them the suit schedule property, to inherit it by intestate succession.

Decision :

11. For the foregoing reasons, the suit is decreed but without costs, declaring P1 & P2 as the legal heirs of T.Srinivas and T.Anuradha.

3 (Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-Gr.I, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court today, the 31 st day of December, 2014)

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants:

PW1 –T.Apuroopa, P1 NIL

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants:

Ex.A1 – Attested copy of Death Certificate of T.Srinivas NIL Ex.A2 – Death Certificate of T.Anuradha Ex.A3 – CC of Regd.Sale Deed No.6819/2002 dt.3.8.2002 Ex.A4 – Statement of Encumbrance on property issued by SRO, Uppal, dt.23.09.2014 Ex.A5 – Market Value Certificate Ex.A6 – Attested copy of Aadar Card of P1 Ex.A7 – Attested copy of Aadar Card of P2 Ex.A8 – Attested copy of Ration Card

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT.

s

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: K.Ashok Babu,

Prl.District Judge.

Wednesday, the 31 st day of December, 2014.

O.P.741/2014

Between:

Asha Sanghi, W/o.late Sri Susheel Kumar Sanghi, Aged about 40 years, Occ: House-wife, R/o.23-120, T.Nagar, Opp: Kothapet Fruit Market, Kothapet X Roads, Hyderabad. …Petitioner

AND

All concerned. ...Respondents

Petition filed under Section.8 of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act

(31 of 1956)

This OP coming up before me on 30.12.2014 for a final hearing in the presence of Mr.Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Counsel for the petitioner and the respondents having remained exparte and on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, this court has rendered the following:

O R D E R

P etitioner, being the mother of the minor-ward, Esha Sanghi, now

aged 15 years, has produced the minor-ward and, on enquiry, she has exercised her intelligent preference to continue to be under the care of the petitioner-mother and natural guardian, who has obviously no adverse interest against her.

2. In order to substantiate the relief as prayed for, the petitioner has examined herself as PW1 and marked Exs.A1 to A4.

3. The testimony of the petitioner-mother that during the life time of her husband, Susheel Kumar Sanghi, he purchased the petition scheduled property along with his mother-Angori Bai Sanghi and brother-Sujeet

Kumar Sanghi and after her husband’s demise on 31.12.2008, his 1/3 rd share in it devolved on the petitioner/wife and her two daughters, namely, the minor-ward Esha Sanghi and another daughter Komal Sanghi, who is a 2 major, and for their better future and higher education, she needs money and having no source left except the petition scheduled property, she intends to dispose it of with the consent of other shareholders, for which she needs of the Court by appointing her as guardian of the minor-ward Esha

Sanghi, is corroborated by Ex.A1-Birth Certificate of minor Esha Sanghi;

Ex.A2-Death Certificate of Susheel Kumar Sanghi; Ex.A3- Voters ID of the petitioner and Ex.A4-Original Sale Deed No.1609/1996, which prove the bona fides of the petitioner, who has no adverse interest against the minor- ward, who, too, has exercised her intelligent preference to continue to stay under her care and natural guardianship.

4. So, I appoint the Petitioner-mother as the guardian of the minor-ward,

Esha Sanghi, for her person and property u/s 7 of the Guardians & Wards

Act, till she attains her majority.

5. Accordingly, I permit the petitioner-guardian of the minor-ward u/S.29(a) of the Guardians & Wards Act to sell the petition scheduled property and deposit the entire sale proceeds in a Nationalised or

Scheduled Bank and utilize them for maintenance, education, upbringing, etc., of the minor-ward and file monthly reports to the District Court, from time to time, about the amounts spent by her on the minor-ward’s maintenance, education, etc., till she attains her majority, for scrutiny and record.

6. To sum up, the OP is allowed but without costs, as indicated above.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-Gr.I, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 31 st day of December, 2014.

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

3

R.R.DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS:

PW1 – Asha Sanghi

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS: Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS:

Ex.A1 - Birth Certificate of Minor Esha Sanghi dt.4.5.1999 Ex.A2 – Death Certificate of Susheel Kumar Sanghi dt.31.12.2008 Ex.A3 – Copy of the Voter ID of the petitioner dt.13.02.2013 Ex.A4 – Original Sale Deed No.1609/1996

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS: Nil

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

R.R.DISTRICT.

*BSL