Shaik Rahim and Others Vs. Manager, State Bank of India and Another

Shaik Rahim and Others vs Manager, State Bank of India and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad Decided Jun 09, 1997

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1113932

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1113932
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Judge: A. Venkatarami Reddy, President, the Honourable Mrs. J. Ananda Lakshmi, Member &Amp; the Honourable Mr. K. Ranga Rao, Member
Decided On: Jun 09, 1997
Case Number: F.A. No. 797 of 1994
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g) - Comparative Citations: 1998 (2) CPC 694, 1998 (3) CPR 237, 1998 (2) CPJ 394

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shaik Rahim and Others

Respondent

Manager, State Bank of India and Another

Excerpt

consumer protection act, 1986 - section 2(1)(g) - comparative citations: 1998 (2) cpc 694, 1998 (3) cpr 237, 1998 (2) cpj 394a. venkatarami reddy, president: 1. the complaint cd 233/94 was filed by three complainants. the 1st complainant is the daughter-in-law of late saidabi and complainants 2 and 3 are daughters of late saidabi. the late saidabi during her life time pledged the gold ornaments with the opposite party no. 1 for a sum of rs. 10,000/-. after the death of the said saidabi, the complainants discharged the loan amount and claimed return of gold ornaments. the 1st opposite party requested the complainants to produce a succession certificate and that unless such certificate is produced, they cannot return the gold ornaments. the district forum found that it cannot be said that the complainants alone are entitled to receive the gold ornaments as legal representatives. it, therefore, held that the opposite party no. 1 rightly asked the complainants to produce succession certificate and as the complainants did not produce the same, the district forum held that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parries and directed the complainants to approach civil court to obtain succession certificate and after production of the same before the opposite parties, they can claim return of the gold ornaments. 2. aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred by the complainants. we cannot say that there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties in insisting on production of succession certificate by the complainants, as under the muslim law, it cannot be said that they are only the legal heirs. hence, we do not see any demerits in the order passed bythedistrict forum. 3. in the result, the appeal is dismissed. there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. appeal dismissed.

Full Judgment

A. Venkatarami Reddy, President:

1. The complaint CD 233/94 was filed by three complainants. The 1st complainant is the daughter-in-law of late Saidabi and complainants 2 and 3 are daughters of late Saidabi. The late Saidabi during her life time pledged the gold ornaments with the opposite party No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. After the death of the said Saidabi, the complainants discharged the loan amount and claimed return of gold ornaments. The 1st opposite party requested the complainants to produce a Succession Certificate and that unless such certificate is produced, they cannot return the gold ornaments. The District Forum found that it cannot be said that the complainants alone are entitled to receive the gold ornaments as legal representatives. It, therefore, held that the opposite party No. 1 rightly asked the complainants to produce Succession Certificate and as the complainants did not produce the same, the District Forum held that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parries and directed the complainants to approach Civil Court to obtain succession certificate and after production of the same before the opposite parties, they can claim return of the gold ornaments.

2. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred by the complainants. We cannot say that there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties in insisting on production of Succession Certificate by the complainants, as under the Muslim Law, it cannot be said that they are only the legal heirs. Hence, we do not see any demerits in the order passed bytheDistrict Forum.

3. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

Same Court & Year Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission S... Same Parties Shaik Rahim and Others vs Manager, State Bank of India and An... Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge A. Venkatarami Reddy, President, the Honourable Mrs. J. Anand...

Land Acquisition