IN THE COURT OF THE III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT :
HYDERABAD.
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2012.
PRESENT : SMT. SHOUKATH JAHAN SIDDIQUE, B.Sc., LL.M.,
III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
O.S. No. 1917 of 2010
Between :
M. Ravindranathand another Plaintiffs
AND
State Bank of Hyderabad and 4 othersDefendants
This suit coming on 25.3.2013 before me for final hearing, upon perusing the plaint and other material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri R. Naresh Kumar Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri K. Narayana Rao, Advocate for defendant No 1, and of Mr. K Narayana Rao Advocate of defendant No 2 & 3, of Sri Hari Rao Lakkaraju, Advocate for defendant No 4, of Sri D. Pavan Kumar, Advocate for defendant No 5and the matter having stood for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :
J U D G M E N T
This is the suit for declaration, perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction.
Page 2 OS 19172010
2. The brief facts of the plaint are that first plaintiff is father and and natural guardian of second plaintiff. The second plaintiff is son of first plaintiff and his deceased wife Late Veena Kumari. That the deceased died on 30.8.2008 leaving behind the plaintiffs as her legal heirs. That first plaintiff was married with the deceased Veena Kumari on 26.4.1992 as per Hindu rites and customs. She died natural death to acute coronary Insufficiency.
The deceased Veena Kumari was employee of State Bank of
Hyderabad even prior to her marriage and was working as Assistant Manager in different branches. She died while she was in service. During her life time, she raised various loans on personal guarantee and against sureties from second defendant. She raised 10 different loans, namely overdraft personal loan, demand loanconsumer loan, demand loan two wheeler loan, term loan car loan, demand loan festival advance, demand loan and new computer loan, demand loan car loan repairs, demand loan gold loan, demand loan term deposit and overdraft and national savings certificates. The said loans were provided to her by SBH under different account numbers for various quantum. This apart she also raised two amounts by way of house loan from
Page 3 OS 19172010
Chikadpally SBH that is defendant No 1. House loan was raised by mortgaging the house bearing No 3526 at Bharath Nagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad. The title deeds pertaining to the said property are deposited with first defendant branch of SBH. Similarly she deposited their 8 national savings certificates with second defendant branch SBH and also deposited gold and golden jubilee cash certificates with second defendant branch SBH raising loan against said securities.
The plaintiffs being only legal heirs became entitled to her service benefits by way of gratuity for a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/ (rupees three lakhs fifty thousand only) approximately, and PF of Rs. 24,000/ (rupees approximately twenty four thousand only) besides having become entitled for pension at the rate of Rs 5,304/ (rupees five thousand three hundred four only) + DA applicable payable to her spouse that is first plaintiff. The deceased Veena
Kumari has also subscribed SBI life insurance which entitles upon her death for the insurance amount that became due and payable to her legal heirs a sum of
Rs. 10,00,000/ (rupees ten lakhs only). As she had joined the service prior to her marriage had brought as her nominee the name of her mother the 5th defendant herein where ever required in the records of the bank as well as in
Page 4 OS 19172010 national savings certificate. 5th defendant resides along with two sons and two daughters and carries small time business of Make Shift Hotel. It is reliably learnt that father of deceased Veena Kumari died long back and his whereabouts are still not known. Father of Veena Kumari was last seen on the occasion of marriage of deceased Veena Kumari with first plaintiff in the year 1992. However 5th defendant falsely claims that her husband is alive at
Bombay. On learning about death of Veena Kumari on 30.8.2008 5th defendant and her children lodged police complaint at Uppal police station against first plaintiff alleging that first plaintiff being husband of deceased
Veena Kumari had killed her. Upon the complaint FIR No 711/2008 dated 31.8.2008 was registered against first plaintiff. Defendant No 5 and her children are creating hurdles to plaintiff to make a lawful claim for benefits of
Veena Kumari. That OS 4398/2008 is filed by defendant No 5 in the name of second plaintiff claiming injunction against Deputy Manager, SBH,
Gounfoundary, LIC . That OS 4398/2008 is pending on the file of this court.
5th defendant also filed a petition under section 7 and 10(1) of Guardian and wards Act for appointing her as guardian of second plaintiff vide OP 56/2009 on the file of family judge, family court, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. OP 56/2009 is also pending. That first plaintiff wrote a letter to first defendant
SBH to provide particulars about outstanding balance against house loan. First
Page 5 OS 19172010 defendant by letter dated 29.12.2009 gave statement that as on 29.12.2009 the outstanding balance in the housing loan account bearing No 52024348568 was
Rs. 7,29,934.33 (rupees seven lakhs twenty nine thousand nine hundred thirty four and paise thirty three only) and in housing loan account number 52024348956 the balance was Rs. 25,813.67 (rupees twenty five thousand eight hundred thirteen and paise sixty seven only). That the to cause of action to sue the defendants No to 5 arose on various dates and more specifically on 24.11.1992 when the plaintiff No 1 and Veena Kumari got married and on 26.4.1992 when the plaintiff No 2 was born to them and again it arose on 30.8.2008 when Veena Kumari died. It arose also on 31.8.2008 when the defendant No 5 complained against the plaintiff No 1 and an FIR was lodged against him by police Uppal, and again it arose on 20.1.2008 when the the complaint was closed after investigation, it also arose on 3.11.2008 when the
Tahsildar, Uppal issued Family Member certificate to the plaintiffs 1 & 2 and it again arose on 3.12.2008 when the defendant No 5 filed OS No 4398/2008 and again in February 2009 when the defendant No 5 file OP 56/2009 and it also arose on 12.12.2008 and 2.1.2009 when the plaintiffs got issued notice and defendant No 2 replied it on 22.1.2009 when the bank by its reply had informed about the adjustment of the amount of insurance in the name of the deceased Veena Kumari was received and credited to the account of various
Page 6 OS 19172010 loan against the NSC and Golden Jubilee Cash certificates and the Gold
Ornaments was adjusted and again it arose on 23.12.2009 when the defendant
No 2 branch of the SBH had issued a letter to the plaintiff No 1 and on 29.12.2009 when the defendant No 1 branch of SBH had issued a statement of dues outstanding on account of housing loan, 26.4.1992, 30.8.2008, 31.8.2008, 24.11.2009, 29.12.2009, 23.12.2009, 3.11.2008. That the parties of the dispute are having their residence at Hyderabad, and the Head office of the
SBH, is situated at Hyderabad, within the jurisdiction of Nampally Mandal, besides the claim of the plaintiffs is within the pecuniary limits a such this
Hon'ble Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit and decide the dispute.
That the dispute sought to be decided is seeking declaration as to the legal right of plaintiffs in accordance with the provisions of Sec 15 & 16 of the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the same is valued at Rs. 10,000/ (rupees ten thousand only) under Section 24(d) A.P.C.F & S.V Act, and an advalorem court fee of Rs. 786 / (rupees seven hundred eighty six only) is paid thereon. The relief of Mandatory Injunction against the defendants 1 & 2 is valued at Rs.
5,000/ (rupees five thousand only) and court fee of Rs. 411/ (rupees four hundred eleven only) is paid thereon, so also the relief of Mandatory injunction against the defendant No 3 is valued at Rs. 5,000/ (rupees five thousand only) under Sec 26(c) and court fee of Rs. 411/ (rupees four hundred eleven only)
Page 7 OS 19172010 is paid thereon, so also the relief of Mandatory injunction against the defendant No 4 is valued at Rs. 5,000/ (rupees five thousand only) under Sec 26(c) and court fee of Rs. 411/ (rupees four hundred eleven only) and the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants 1 to 3 is valued at Rs.
5,000/ (rupees five thousand only) under under Section 24(d) A.P.C.F & S.V
Act, and court fees of Rs. 411/ (rupees four hundred eleven only) is paid there on. The total court fee of Rs. 2,430/ (rupees two thousand four hundred thirty only) is paid under Section II (b) & (c) of A.P.C.F & S.V Act, which is sufficient. The total court fee of Rs. 2,430/ (rupees two thousand four hundred thirty only) is paid by way of Bank challan bearing No 30 dated 29.4.2010 paid in the SBH, City Civil Court, branch, Hyderabad, in lieu of court fee stamps. That no other suit or proceedings are pending between the parties
before any court, Tribunal or any Authority with regard to the subject matter of
this suit except OS No 4398/2008 on the file of III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil
Court, Hyderabad and the O.P. No 56/2009 on the file of Family Judge,
Secunderabad, both of which are filed by the defendant No 5 herein.
3. Written statement filed by defendant No 1 but memo filed by defendant No 2 and defendant No 3 adopting written statement of defendant
Page 8 OS 19172010
No 1. The contents thereof in so far as relating to adjustment of SBI life insurance amount and providing the name of defendant No 5 prior to deceased
Veena Kumari 's marriage are true and correct. The rest of the contents of the para are not to the knowledge of defendants. An injunction suit vide OS No 4398/2008 on the file of this Hon'ble Court is filed by defendant No 5 and the same is pending for consideration. The 3rd defendant was made party in that suit. This defendant and 2nd defendant are not parties to that suit. The contents relating to the particulars of repayment of due etc, are true and correct. The defendant Nos 1 to 3 are entitled to adjust the loan dues from SBI life insurance amount and there cannot be any impediment for the same. The defendants submit that there is an outstanding amount of Rs. 6,29,216.09/ (rupees six lakhs twenty nine thousand two hundred sixteen and paise nine only) in loan account No 520243348568 and an amount of Rs. 29,257.67 (rupees twenty nine thousand two hundred fifty seven and paise sixty seven only) in loan account No 52024348954 as on 31.1.2011 after adjustment of the insurance amount. It is submitted that the legal heirs of late Veena Kumari are entitled to receive the title deeds, NSC, Golden Jubilee Cash Certificate and
Gold Ornaments after obtaining necessary orders from Hon'ble court and also furnishing the no due certificate from the other defendants. The contents thereof in regard to registering of nomination and subsequent nonchange of
Page 9 OS 19172010 the nomination after marriage are true and correct. However the plaintiffs have to establish their legal entitlement to succeed the estate of deceased Veena
Kumari. The rest of the contents of the para are not to the knowledge of the defendants. The plaintiff is absolutely not entitled to make legal pleas.
However the same are to be decided by this Hon'ble court. It is not correct to state that plaintiff is not bound to obtain succession certificate as alleged.
Necessarily the plaintiffs have to obtain a succession certificate rather than a mere declaration for receiving the benefits., NSC, Golden Jubilee Cash
Certificate, Gold Ornaments and Original title deed of deceased Veena Kumari after adjustment of outstanding. The plaintiffs are not entitled to either mandatory injunction or perpetual injunction as sought for. The plaintiffs are not entitled to perpetual injunction against defendants No 1 to 3 restraining them from initiating recovery proceedings against plaintiffs with respect to the outstanding dues of deceased Veena Kumari. It is submitted that as per the banking rules regulations, the bank has to charge interest on loan accounts until the outstanding amount is realized. It is also submitted that the documents pertaining to house property shall be released to legal heirs upon the submission of legal heir/succession certificate only after clearing the outstanding dues with up to date interest. The plaintiffs never made any effort to clear the outstanding in the loan accounts. The defendant No 1 to 3 have
Page 10 OS 19172010 absolutely no role to play in view of the admitted disputes between the plaintiff
No 1 and defendant No 5 on the issue. It is absolutely false to allege that there is any continued wrong alleged. There is no association as alleged. However with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction, the plaintiff have to seek for succession certificate instead of mere declaration. In such a contingency the pecuniary jurisdiction would vest with higher courts. This defendant is not aware about the pendency of suits between the parties and it is for the plaintiffs to establish the same. The plaintiffs have to necessarily get a succession certificates for receiving the originals of 1) title deeds, ii) NSC certificate, iii) Golden Jubilee cash certificate and Gold Ornaments of deceased Veena Kumari. The plaintiffs are not entitled to seek the adjustment of loan accounts in a particular pattern without obtaining a succession certificate and No due certificates from the defendants. Plaintiff is not entitled to seek for mandatory or perpetual injunction for release of title deed of Veena Kumari with out clearing the outstanding dues with up to date interest, or release gratuity, monthly pension, provident fund, etc without obtaining a succession certificate more so the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction against defendant No 1 to 3 restraining them from initiating recovery proceedings. The defendants are well within their rights to initiate recovery proceedings once the amounts due are crystallized. Hence they prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
Page 11 OS 19172010
4. Written statement of defendant No 4 is that that this defendant has not received any documents relied upon by the plaintiff and this defendant reserve his right to file additional written statement when plaintiff supplies the documents relied upon by them. This defendant is not aware of the marriage of
T.S Veena Kumari with plaintiff No 1 as per the Hindu Custom and tradition on 26.4.1992 at Kapusanga, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad and that after wed lock they gave birth to male child, namely Master Anikit Anand and that presently he is about 10 years for want of personal knowledge and plaintiff No 1 is put to strict proof of the said allegations made in the para. This defendant denies the same for want of personal knowledge and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same with oral and document evidence. That except that deceased
Veena Kumari died on 30.8.2008 for other allegation of para plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. That the deceased was an employee and took polices with defendant No 4 corporation vide policy No 640325516, 640678659 and 640665684 for Sum Assured of Rs. 25,000/ (rupees twenty five thousand only) Rs. 1,00,000/ (rupees one lakh only) and Rs. 75,000/ (rupees seventy five thousand only) respectively. That OS 4398/2008 was filed by the grandmother of plaintiff No 2 is pending before the Hon'ble III JCJ, City Civil
Court, Hyderabad and that all other allegations can not be traversed by this
Page 12 OS 19172010 defendant as this defendant do not have any record or personal knowledge about deceased marital status and filing of criminal case and pendency of the criminal cases against the plaintiff and the same was closed hence denies the same for want of personal knowledge and plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. Other allegation made therein cannot be traversed as this defendant is not aware of any of the facts mentioned therein between the plaintiff, and the defendant No 5 and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. That plaintiff did not place any material before this Hon'ble Court and that he has to take steps to get succession certificate or declaration from the competent court of law to prove that plaintiffs are the legal hire of the deceased. In the absence of the same defendant No 4 corporation will pay the amount to the nominee as per the rules. This defendant is not aware of other allegation made in the para and denies the same for want of personal knowledge. The plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. This defendant will abide by the orders of this Hon'ble
Court, in the interest of justice. That other allegation made therein cannot be traversed as this defendant is not aware of any of the facts mentioned there in between the plaintiff and wife of the plaintiff No 1, and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. This defendant submit that plaintiffs did not place any material before this Hon'ble Court that he has taken any steps to get succession certificate from the competent court of law to prove that they are the legal
Page 13 OS 19172010 heirs of the deceased in view of the rival claim by the defendant No 5. In the absence of the same defendant No 4 corporation will pay the amount to the nominee as per the rules. The plaintiff has to prove themselves that they are legal heirs of the deceased and get succession certificate from the competent court of law. With out seeking proper remedy mere declaration of legal status is not maintainable and proper and necessary parties are not made as parties to the suit as such the suit is not maintainable under law. This defendant is not aware of other allegation made in the para and denies the same for want of personal knowledge and plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. That defendant No 4 will abide by the orders of this Hon'ble court in the interest of justice. There is no cause of action for filing of the suit and alleged cause of action is invented for the purpose of the case and plaintiff is liable to put to strict proof of the same. The alleged transaction is never took place within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court and hence is denied and plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. Hence he prays to permit him to deposit amounts in the court Rs. 1,00,000/ (rupees one lakh only) under the policy No 640665684 and Rs. 55,430.60 (rupees fifty five thousand four hundred thirty and paise sixty only) under the policy No 640325516 and under the policy No 640678659.
Page 14 OS 19172010
5. Written statement of defendant No 5 is that Late Smt. Veena
Kumari is the mother of plaintiff No 2 and wife of plaintiff No 1 who died under suspicious circumstances. This defendant No 5 submits that firstly plaintiffs have to establish that there is dispute with regard to successors of late
Veena Kumari and secondly they have to exhaust other remedies available in law by approaching proper authorities before they approach this Hon'ble Court for any relief much less the suit reliefs. Further it is respectfully submitted that plaintiffs have to establish that they are entitled to present relief in the suit on the date of filing and prosecute the same before this Hon'ble Court, for want of jurisdiction. It is respectfully submitted that firstly plaintiffs had failed to give satisfactory explanations in absence of any cause, how they are entitled to file the present suit which itself is not maintainable either on law or on facts. That the plaintiff No 2 is still minor, aged about 10 years. His mother T.S. Veena
Kumari died unnatural death, at very young age and first information report
No 711/2008 dated 30..2008 is registered by Uppal police station against the respondent No 3. She died due to physical and mental torcher put to her by respondent No 3 who habituated to all vises for which he requires money.
That the grandmother as next friend who is none other then this defendant No 5 filed suit O.S No 4398/2008 on the file of Hon'ble III Junior Civil Judge,
Page 15 OS 19172010
CCC, at Hyderabad and the same is decreed restraining the release of any amount by the defendant No 1 to 4 in favour of plaintiff No 1 and the same is final and binding as no appeal is preferred against it till date. That late T.S.
Veena Kumari during her lifetime worked as Asst. Manager Cadre with the defendant No 1 herein and on her death there are terminal benefits to be paid by SBH. Further in addition to it during her life time late T.S. Veena Kumari had obtained few policies with defendant No 2 herein. That the next friend of minor Smt. T.S Mahalaxmi is the NOMINEE for all the amounts for which she was been nominated as per rules and acts in force. That the plaintiff No 1 herein admitted that Late T.S. Veena Kumari acquired suit schedule properties
before her marriage and nominated her mother as nominee for all the benefits
and expressed her intension to continue the same nominee till her death .
Admittedly provision of Nomination is to lawfully settle all future claims in favour of Nominee only in case of death of obtainer/nominator. That the plaintiff No 1 herein admitted that during her life time Late T.S. Veena Kumari utilized the number of different loans and she is due and payable about a sum of Rs. 17,00,000/ (rupees seventeen lakhs only) (to say exactly as Rs.
16,47,642/ as per statement filed by them before this Hon'ble Court as known to his defendant lastly) and interest thereon. Further it is respectfully submitted, that defendant No 1 will definitely recover the loan amounts from
Page 16 OS 19172010 the successors of late Smt. T.S Veena Kumari i.e., Minor plaintiff No 2. At this point of juncture it is pertinent to note that the total amount receivable under the terminal benefits from defendant No 1 and maturity amount of policies from other defendants is much less than the amount recoverable under different loans availed by the Late. Smt T.S. Veena Kumari during her married life which lived for short. That the value of the relief pleaded is Rs. 3,50,000/ (rupees three lakhs fifty thousand only) approximately apart from other amount as pleaded bars the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court from trying the present suit. That the plaintiff No 1 herein filed the above suit on his behalf and on behalf of minor seeking 8 reliefs while giving schedule of properties 'A' to 'D' consisting of a house property and other movable properties consisting of national saving certificates, Gold Ornaments, claiming
Gratuity and Provident Fund with monthly pension including arrears and increments with LIC policies. That the very first relief itself is not maintainable on the ground that there is no pleadings that dispute raised by any parties that they are not the legal heirs of late T.S. Veena Kumari in light of the judgment delivered by our own Hon'ble High Court of AP reported as 2009 (6) ALT 221.
Further it is respectfully submitted that without valuating all the assets belonging to Late Veena Kumari with detailed particulars and paying proper and sufficient fees they cannot get any succession over the properties belonging
Page 17 OS 19172010 to late T.S. Veena Kumari. That plaintiffs cannot seek relief of direction against the defendant No 1 to 4 for release of any amount without giving particulars of its maturity values, and other amounts as schedule shown as A to D in the suit plaint and paying proper and sufficient Court Fees thereon. That taking only the schedule A itself which is valued at Rs. 29,69,000/ (rupees twenty nine lakhs sixty nine thousand only) as per the Market Value fixed by the
Government. It is respectfully submitted that Market Value Certificate issued by the SubRegistrar office is filed before this Hon'ble Court in original for the consideration of this Hon'ble Court It is respectfully submitted that Schedule A which the plaintiffs wants to succeed as successors debars the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. That in respect of the schedule B item 1 and 3 as well as schedule C and D is concern to which the plaintiffs seeks to succeed as successors has to give its Face Value and maturity which they were very much aware having received the statement of outstanding amount as well as maturity value of the policies and certificates being furnished by the defendant No 1 to 4 in suit OS No 4398/2008 which is decreed against the plaintiff No 1 by this Hon'ble Court and not pending as pleaded by plaintiffs. It is respectfully submitted that plaintiffs failed to give exact weight and present market value of Schedule B item No 2 which is not less then Rs. 20,000/ (rupees twenty thousand only) per 10 grams, which is just and sufficient to
Page 18 OS 19172010 take the present suit out of the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.
That the plaintiffs in the above suit failed to disclose the exact value of the properties to avoid payment of proper court fees. Further it is respectfully submitted that the pleadings in the suit bars the plaintiffs from seeking any reliefs much less the reliefs as prayed in the suit. That plaintiffs herein in above suit approached this Hon'ble Court with unclean hands having undervalued the suit claims maliciously to avoid revenue to Government by payments of correct court fees. That even otherwise the reliefs as prayed are out of the perview of original suits and they have to approach appropriate court for such reliefs. That first and foremost the suit reliefs are under valued and improper court fees is paid and secondly none of the reliefs comes under the preview of this Hon'ble
Court by way of original suit. That if any one of the schedule is taken for consideration as per market value which crosses the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court. Hence the suit plaint is liable for rejection by dismissing the same on the ground of reliefs claimed are not properly valued and crosses the pecuniary jurisdiction of Hon'ble Junior Civil Court. That late T.S. Veena
Kumari during her life time worked as Asst. Manager Cadre with the defendant
No 1 herein and on her death there are terminal benefits to be paid by SBH.
Further in addition to it during her life time late T.S. Veena Kumari had obtained few policies with defendant No 2 herein. That the next friend of
Page 19 OS 19172010 minor Smt. T.S Mahalaxmi is the NOMINEE for all the amounts for which she was been nominated as per rules and acts in force. That the plaintiff No 1 herein admitted that Late T.S. Veena Kumari acquired suit schedule properties
before her marriage and nominated her mother as nominee for all the benefits
and expressed her intension to continue the same nominee till her death .
Admittedly provision of Nomination is to lawfully settle all future claims in favour of Nominee only in case of death of obtainer/nominator. That the plaintiff No 1 during the course of hearing of the suit OS 4398/2008 has made volteface,/turnaround and he changed whole story by such lame defences which is totally against his own pleadings in the said suit and unsuccessfully tried to make efforts to take away the attention of this Hon'ble Court from the core issue of paramount important of minor and admitted facts which he pleaded while made unfertile efforts to mislead this Hon'ble Court. In the circumstances, can this Hon'ble Court conduct the trial or adjudication of all or any of the core issues by way of trial in light of bar of pecuniary jurisdiction as fixed by law. That if the pleadings of the plaintiffs is taken as true for arguments purpose also then there is no need of any declaration to the effect of legal heirs which are not disputed as pleaded in the plaint This defendant No 5 denies for want of knowledge all the material allegations made in the said paras of the plaint which are not specifically admitted herein and the plaintiff
Page 20 OS 19172010 is put to strict proof of the same. That plaintiff approached this Hon'ble with unclean hands lawfully disentitles plaintiffs to any relief much less the reliefs as prayed in the suit plaint under reply and on this sole ground suit is liable to be dismissed. That the acts of the plaintiffs put this defendant to mental agony, high stress, depression, inconvenience, unimaginable hardships embarrassment, strain, uncertainty and humiliation. On this account this defendant No 5 is entitled to damages at least double the actual values of suit claims and same may be granted to this defendant by this Hon'ble Court while dismissing the suit for their false and vaxcacious proceedings initiated against her in the interest of justice. That cause of action as alleged in suit plaint coined only for the purpose of present suit. There is nocase in favour of plaintiffs to present suit before this Hon'ble Court any other Hon'ble Court by way of civil suit. On the other hand this defendant submits that the present suit is not maintainable for any of the reliefs same being barred by one or the other laws in force as stated herein above. Further it is most respectfully submitted that plaintiffs having grudge against this defendant whose suit O.S.No 4398/2008 is already stand decreed and no appeal is preferred, have malafied intentions to damage the reputation and credit of this defendant in the market.
Plaintiff have adopted handtwisting method by filing present suit as counter blast. That there are material alterations in the documents filed by the plaintiff
Page 21 OS 19172010
No 1 as such the same are invalid, unenforceable, illegal and not binding on defendants, witgh accordance of laws in force. That in the given circumstances this Hon'ble Court can not entertain the present suit on pecuniary jurisdiction ground when the suit relief is beyond the scope of this Hon'ble court as the suit is under valued and sufficient court fee is not paid. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed. Even otherwise the plaintiff put forth false claim basing on the false pleadings as stated supra, hence for this sole ground plaintiffs are disentitled themselves for any relief much less the suit claims. The suit claim is based upon the fraudulent, deceitful, and cheating methods adopted by the plaintiffs having grudge against this defendant. Such of the averments contained in the plaint, which are not specially traversed herein, are not admitted and the plaintiffs are put to strict proof of the same. That this defendant reserve her rights to file any additional written statement or/and document if found necessary and prays this Hon'ble Court to permit the same.
Hence he prays to dismiss the suit.
6. Basing on the rival contentions of both sides with respect to pecuniary jurisdiction preliminary issue is framed which is as follows
Page 22 OS 19172010
Issue : Whether this court is having pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
7. Only on this issue the evidence was led and first plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9 which are Ex.A1 Death certificate of Veena Kumari. Ex.A2 Letter from SBH dated 23.12.2009. Ex.A3
Letter from SBH dated 29.12.2009. Ex.A4 Served copy in O.P.No. 56/2009.
Ex.A5 Office copy counter in O.P.No 56/2009. Ex.A6 Office copy of Legal
Notice dated 12.12.2008. Ex.A7 Letter from SBH dated 2.1.2009. Ex.A8
Original family member certificate. Ex.A9 Final report given by Tahsildar.. On behalf of defendant No 1 to 3 DW1 was examined, no evidence was reported by defendant No 4 and on behalf of defendant No 5 she herself examined as
DW2 and got marked Exs.B1 & B2 which are Ex.B1 Market value certificate.
Ex.B2 Certified copy of judgment and decree in OS No 4398/2008 on the file of this court. On completion of both side evidence on the preliminary issue arguments heard.
8. Now, the point for determination is whether the plaintiff is
Page 23 OS 19172010 entitled for the relief sought for.
Issue : Whether this court is having pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
This issue is framed as preliminary issue because defendant No 5 in his written statement has disputed about pecuniary jurisdiction of this court. As such evidence only on preliminary issue with respect to jurisdiction of this court is framed. Having relevancy to this issue in the plaint the first plaintiff pleaded that the plaintiff's claim is within pecuniary limits as such this court is having jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Having relevancy to this issue there is no pleadings objecting jurisdiction of this court by defendant No 1, SBH
Chikadpally branch. Since adopting memo is filed by defendant No 2 & 3 SBH
Ramannapet Branch, and SBH Gunfoundary branch it is deemed that they also never pleaded and objected about pecuniary jurisdiction of this court. Similarly there is no defence taken by defendant No 4 also , with respect to pecuniary jurisdiction of this court. However defendant No 5 pleaded that the value of relief pleaded is Rs. 3,50,000/ (rupees three lakhs fifty thousand only) approximately apart from other amounts bars the pecuniary jurisdiction of this court from trying the suit. The first plaintiff filed present suit on behalf of minor seeking 8 reliefs. While coming to schedule of properties A to D
Page 24 OS 19172010 consisting of house properties, movable properties, national savings certificate, gold, gratuity, provident fund, monthly pension including DA and increase in
LIC insurance. Without valuing A to D schedule properties belonging to deceased Veena Kumari with details and paying proper and sufficient court fees plaintiffs cannot succeed over properties. Only schedule A property itself is valued at Rs. 29,69,000/ (rupees twenty nine lakhs sixty nine thousand only) as per market value fixed by Government. The schedule A property itself which the plaintiffs want to succeed as successors debars the pecuniary jurisdiction of this court. In respect of schedule B item No 1 & 3 as well as schedule C and D to which the plaintiffs sought relief as successors has to give its exact value which they are very much aware having received and maturity value of certificates but failed to file them The plaintiffs failed to give exact weight and present market value of schedule B item No 2 which is not less than
Rs. 20,000/ (rupees twenty thousand only) per 10 grams itself which is sufficient to take the present suit out of pecuniary jurisdiction of this court. The suit fails to discuss the exact value of properties to avoid payment of court fees.
Even if one schedule is taken for consideration as per market value, it crosses the pecuniary jurisdiction of this court. The suit is under valued and sufficient court fee is not paid. Hence she prayed that this court is not having pecuniary jurisdiction even for single schedule of property or for the relief claimed by the
Page 25 OS 19172010 plaintiffs.
9. This is not a factual issue. This is a legal issue which can be decided by pleadings and the record. In the course trial for the preliminary issue about jurisdiction PW1 got marked Exs.A1 to A9 which are Ex.A1
Death certificate of Veena Kumari. Ex.A2 Letter from SBH dated 23.12.2009.
Ex.A3 Letter from SBH dated 29.12.2009. Ex.A4 Served copy in O.P.No.
56/2009. Ex.A5 Office copy counter in O.P.No 56/2009. Ex.A6 Office copy of
Legal Notice dated 12.12.2008. Ex.A7 Letter from SBH dated 2.1.2009. Ex.A8
Original family member certificate. Ex.A9 Final report given by Tahsildar. In the similar manner DW2 who is defendant No 5 in the main suit deposed the same thing with respect to jurisdiction pleaded in her written statement as discussed above. She already marked Exs.B1 & B2 which are Ex.B1 Market value certificate. Ex.B2 Certified copy of judgment and decree in OS No 4398/2008 on the file of this court.
10. As already stated this issue pertains to legal issue about pecuniary jurisdiction of this court as such the burden is on the plaintiff to prove how this court is having jurisdiction to entertain his suit. PW1 in his chief examination have deposed about jurisdiction of this court. However since it is legal issue his plaint has to be looked into. Even in the plaint PW1 simply mentioned that his
Page 26 OS 19172010 claim is within pecuniary limits, of this court. The schedule of property in the plaint shows that he is claiming to be legal heir and successor of schedule A property bearing No 3520 at Bharath Nagar, Ramanthapur, schedule B property that is 8 national certificates, Schedule C property i.e., gold ornaments, gold jubilee cash certificates schedule without details, amounts of gratuity, per month, monthly pension along with cash schedule D property, 3 life insurance policies. The value of each of the schedule of property is not at all mentioned. Simply he has shown A schedule property as H.No 3526 but did not disclosed the details of its worth to succeed A schedule property.
Similarly he has simply mentioned 8 national savings certificates in schedule B but not at all disclosed by giving details the amount in each national saving certificate over which he is claiming right of succession and legal heir ship.
Similarly in item No 2 a vague statement in schedule B statement is made stating that schedule B property is of gold ornaments and item No 3 in schedule B property is golden jubilee certificate. He has not at ll give details about what are the gold ornaments, what is the weight of each ornament and what is the expected prize of each ornament. He has not given details about the cash in golden jubilee cash certificate. Similarly no details of the amount of the deceased in her gratuity, provident fund, monthly pension, arrears are mentioned in C schedule property. In the similar manner no amount of details
Page 27 OS 19172010 are mentioned with respect to LIC policies mentioned in D schedule property.
The plaintiff has conveniently shown all the properties movable and immovable, death benefits of belonging to deceased from A to D schedule in the plaint but has paid court fee only the notional court fee for the relief of injunction. Claim of the plaintiff in the present suit is to declare the plaintiffs as legal heirs and successors of the deceased for all A to D schedule of properties mentioned in the plaint whereas paid notional court fee for mandatory injunction over schedule of property. . As rightly said by defendant No 5 even if single schedule of property is picked up its value exceeds more than pecuniary jurisdiction of this court. But the plaintiff simply escaped with a single statement in his plaint at para 11 that this court is having pecuniary jurisdiction, to entertain the claim of plaintiff. Ex.B1 market value certified copy got marked by DW2/defendant No 5 goes to show that A schedule property itself is more than Rs. 1,00,000/ (rupees one lakh only) which is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this court. This is only with respect of A schedule property whereas as already stated there are no details given about
Schedules B to D properties. The plaintiff's claim as legal heir and successor over the schedule of properties undoubtedly crosses the pecuniary jurisdiction of this court. There is absolutely no cross examination on Ex.B1 which is filed by DW2. This goes to show that plaintiff is admitting Ex.B1 and also that
Page 28 OS 19172010 pecuniary jurisdiction of this court is ousted for single schedule of property that is A schedule property itself. Plaintiffs at one end are pleading to be legal heirs and successors of schedule A to D properties whereas seeking the relief of mandatory injunction to direct defendant No 1 to 4 to release title deeds and document, pensions, LIC polices etc in the name of plaintiffs. Seeking declaration is separate issue and seeking mandatory injunction is separate issue. When plaintiff is seeking declaration as legal heir over schedule A to D properties, he has to necessarily pay court fee over the properties over which they are seeking declaration. The plaintiffs should necessarily give details of each and every schedule of property. But plaintiff in present case neither given details of each schedule of property and its value not paid court fee accordingly. Moreover Ex.B1 shows that the value of only A Schedule property exceeds pecuniary jurisdiction of this court. Hence if plaintiffs are seeking succession over schedule of properties they need to file succession O.P in competent court not the present suit for mandatory injunction. Hence we hold that the relief claimed by the plaintiff is misguiding. Plaintiffs are seeking legal heire ship and succession over the properties of the deceased mentioned in their plaint but failed to prove the jurisdiction of this court But surprisingly though the properties from A to D are more than Rs 1,00,000/ (rupees one lakh only) that is more than pecuniary jurisdiction of this court but still the
Page 29 OS 19172010 plaintiff misconceived and filed the suit in present court. Therefore we hold that plaintiff failed to prove that this court is having jurisdiction to entertain the suit in the relevancy with the claim of the plaintiff. Accordingly issue is answered.
In the result suit is dismissed.
Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her,
corrected by me and pronounced in the open Court, this the 24th day of April, 2013.
III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF : P.W.1 : M. Ravindranath
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANTS : D.W.1 : Syed Khursheed hasan D.W.2 : T.S. Mahalaxmi
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF :
Ex.A1 Death certificate of Veena Kumari. Ex.A2 Letter from SBH dated 23.12.2009.
Page 30 OS 19172010
Ex.A3 Letter from SBH dated 29.12.2009. Ex.A4 Served copy in O.P.No. 56/2009. Ex.A5 Office copy counter in O.P.No 56/2009. Ex.A6 Office copy of Legal Notice dated 12.12.2008. Ex.A7 Letter from SBH dated 2.1.2009. Ex.A8 Original family member certificate. Ex.A9 Final report given by Tahsildar.
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS :
Nil
III J.C.J.
Corrections carried out