G.VARALAKSHMI & ANR. versus G.SRINIVASA RAO(D) THROUGH LRS. & ANR

Citation: [2009] 12 S.C.R. 551 · Decided: 06-08-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA, DEEPAK VERMA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

· M.N. Krishna Mani, Thima Reddy, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, 
Bina Madhavan for the Appellants. 
A.K. Ganguli, P.Keshav Rao, P. Venkat Reddy, 
G 
, 
t 
"7' 
G.Prabhakar for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was .delivered 
551 
H 
552 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
ORDER 
~ . 
1. Leave granted. 
2. The late G. Ramanujulu Naidu had four sons - G.K. 
B 
Kuppu Swamy Naidu, G.R. Varadaraula, G.R. Sripathi Naidu 
and G.R. Gajapati Naidu, G.K. Kuppu Samy Naidu had two 
sons Mohan Babu and G. Srinivasa Rao (1st Defendant). 
Defendant No. 2 is the wife of Defendant No. 1 They have four 
daughters namely Vinodini, Vinita, Vibha and Shalini and one 
son G.S. Ravi Kumar who married the first plaintiff in the year 
c 1978 and the 2nd plaintiff was born to them in the year 1980. 
G.K. Kuppusamy effected the partition as alleged by the 
plaintiffs, sometime prior to 31.12.1964. He, before dying in 
1976 executed a Will on 25.10.1973, which was in the custody 
of the first defendant. After the death of G.S. Ravi Kumar in 
D tragic circumstances, the plaintiffs issued notice to the 
defendants to partition the properties; belonging to the joint 
family, but they allegedly did not cooperate. Hence a civil suit 
was filed. 
E 
3. The defendants admitted relationship between them 
and about Kuppu Swamy dying in the year 1976 and leaving 
behind a Will dated 1.11.1975. As many as 9 issues were 
framed by the trial court and a preliminary decree was passed 
for partition of item No. 7 into three shares of which two 
F 
belonged to the plaintiff. The remaining suit was dismissed on 
the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. 
4. An appeal was preferred before the High Court of 
Judicature at Andhra Pradesh, relating to all suit properties 
except item 7 wherein the point for consideration was whether 
I'"' the properties in the plaintiff schedule are joint family properties 
'-=' 
of the 1st Plaintiff and 1st Defendant. During pendency of the 
. ' 
appeal the minor son attained majority and wanted to implead 
daughters of respondent No. 1 as some of the properties were 
in their names. 
H 
G. VARALAKSHMI & ANR. v. G. SRINIVASA RAO (D) 553 
THROUGH LRS. & ANR. 
> "' 
5. The appeal was dismissed, hence the appellants are 
A 
before us through this appeal by way of special leave. 
6. A Bench of this Court by an order dated 06.05.2004 
issued notice limited only to item Nos. 5 and 7 of Schedule I 
and on the question of the non-production of the Will. The Will 
B 
in question, said to be dated 1.11.1973 executed by G.R. 
Kuppusamy Naidu has not been produced. In the proceeding 
sheet dated 23.01.2008 it was noticed: 
"One of the contentions raised before us is that the 
Will dated 1.11.1975 executed by G.R. Kuppuswamy c 
Naidu purported to be in favour of his sons Mohan Babu 
and G. Sreenivasa Rao as also Ravi Kumar has not been 
produced so as to enable the Court to ascertain as to 
whether by reason thereof only item No. 7 of the property 
described in plaint schedule -I was bequeathed in favour 
D 
--~. 
of Ravi Kumar or not. We direct the respondent sot 
produce an authenticated copy of the said Will, if not the 
original." 
7. Shri AK. Ganguly, the learned senior counsel appearing 
E 
on behalf of the respondents when the matter was called out 
stated that the Will, in question, is not traceable. We, thus, 
• -+ 
proceed on the basis that the said purported Will being non-
existent, the parties did not inherit any property pursuant thereto 
or in furtherance thereof. 
F 
8. Indisputably, G.R. Kuppuswamy obtained the property 
by reason of a Will executed by his father in the year 1921 from 
Ramanujulu Naidu. He expired on 16.01.1976. Srinivasa Rao, 
the predecessor-in-interest of the parties thereto expired on 
30th July, 2006. One of the questions which was raised before 
G 
• ..,, 
us by Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, the learned senior counsel is that 
Prabhavati, widow of Srinivasa Rao and his daughters, 
Vinodini, Vinita, Vibha and Shalini could not inherit any property 
of G.R. Kuppuswamy Naidu or Srinivasa Rao, the same being 
a Mitakshara coparcenery one. The contention of the learned 
H 
554 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 12 S.C.R. 
A counsel is not correct, inasmuch as Kuppuswamy got the 
... 
property by reason of a Will, it was, therefore, his individual 
properties and not, Mitakshara coparcenery property on 30th 
November, 1921. Furthermore, the execution of the said Will 
and with effect thereof is no

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.