Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: devolved in Muppavarapu Chowdary And Leela Krishna ... vs Ibrahim Uddin And on 6 March, 2026Matching Fragments
5. Smt. Padmaja, claiming that Dr. Prasad had passed away, intestate, in relation to his properties in India, filed O.S. No.69 of 2002, before the XII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada for partition of the properties of Dr. Prasad, between herself and the mother of Dr. Prasad as they were the sole legal heirs, on whom the estate of Dr. Prasad would devolve, in equal shares upon herself and her mother in law, who is the mother of Dr. Prasad.
6. The above suit was originally filed against the mother of Dr. Prasad and Sri Hemanth Kumar, the younger brother of Dr. Prasad. The RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.3325 of 2020 & batch mother of Dr. Prasad, passed away during the pendency of the suit. Her legal heirs, namely her sons and daughters, were impleaded as defendant Nos.2and 4 to 10. Similarly, the Muppavarapu Chowdary and Leela Rama Krishna Prasad Trust(hereinafter referred to as the Trust), which is the main beneficiary of the two Wills, was impleaded as defendant No.11 and two persons said to be trustees of this trust were impleaded as defendant Nos.12 & 13.
13. The appeals and writ petitions, in the present litigation, can be considered in three parts.
PART I :A.S.No. 645 and A.S.No.707 of 2013, dealing with the question of whether the Wills of 5.4.1999 and 17.04.1999 had been executed by Dr. Prasad; whether they have been proved, in accordance with law and whether the property of Dr. Prasad would devolve, according to the Wills, on the Trust or whether the property of Dr. Prasad would devolve on his legal heirs.
1516. Smt. Padmaja also contended, in the plaint, that her signatures were taken, by Sri Hemanth Kumar, on various typed papers. She was unaware of the contents of these papers and that the defendants were misusing those papers to state that she had accepted reduction of the share of her husband, which devolved on her, in certain firms. She executed a power of attorney in favour of Sri Hemanth Kumar, who was the 2nd defendant, in O.S.No.69 of 2002, to represent her interest in the said firm. Later, having come to know of all the steps being taken by the defendants to deprive her of her rightful share in the property, of Dr. Prasad, she had issued a legal notice, dated 11.01.2002, calling upon Sri Hemanth Kumar to render proper accounts RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.3325 of 2020 & batch to her and also to furnish copies of Wills alleged to have been executed by Dr. Prasad, in relation to the properties in India.
D. Whether, the Wills meet the requirement of the Convention on the conflict of laws relating to the form of testamentary dispositions?
25. Before going into these issues, a preliminary contention raised by Sri M. R.S. Srinivas would have to be noticed. The Will of 05.04.1999, created a trust with certain trustees. However, one of the prospective trustees, Sri V. Natarajeswara Rao, had passed away, on 12.04.1999. Sri M.R.S. Srinivas would contend, without prejudice to the contentions that Wills are invalid, that the Will, of 05.04.1999, became void as one of the trustees, on whom the properties were to devolve had passed away. Further, the Will of 17.04.1999, RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.3325 of 2020 & batch appears to have been executed to get over this difficulty. In such a situation, the said Will of 17.04.1999, which does not mention about the Will of 05.04.1999, is also invalid for non mention of the Will of 05.04.1999. This court must reject this contention. Once, the Will of 17.04.1999, has been executed, it would supersede the Will of 05.04.1999. The execution of the Will of 17.04.1999, expresses the intent of Dr. Prasad to revoke the earlier Will.