The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.R. No. 15 of 2020 Rinu Dhar … … Petitioner. 1. Rikta Dhar 2. Minor Pratyay Dhar 3. The General Public of locality of Loco Bazar, P.O. V E R S U S Patherdih, P.S. – Jorapokhar (Sudamadih), Dhanbad. … … … Opposite Parties. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate : Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate For the O. Parties
Legal Reasoning
09/14.06.2024 Heard the parties. 2. Instant revision application has been preferred against the Judgment dated 07.01.2020, passed by Principal District Judge, Dhanbad in Misc. (Succession Certificate) Appeal No. 19/2014, whereby and whereunder, appeal has been dismissed and order dated 10.04.2014, passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-Ist, Dhanbad in Misc. Revocation Case No. 72/2008 has been affirmed. 3. An application being Succession Case No. 10/2007 under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act was filed by the petitioner before the Court of Sub-Judge, Dhanbad for grant of Succession Certificate in her own name for the debts and sureties of her deceased husband Late Pradip Dhar. The specific plea was taken that the deceased – Pradip Dhar was petitioner’s husband who died on 19.08.2006 issueless leaving behind his wife (petitioner) and the properties as referred in Schedule. The deceased was permanent employee at Lodna Colliery posted as Executive Engineer. 4. The petitioner examined herself as PW-1 and OPW-1 was examined as General Public and she also proved documentary evidences. The Sub Judge-I – cum – District Delegate, Dhanbad, vide order dated 08.06.2007, allowed the Succession Certificate Case No. 10/2007 and Succession Certificate was directed to be prepared in favour of the petitioner for realization of debts and sureties of her husband. 1 5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 08.06.2007, the opposite party nos. 1 and 2, filed an application under Section 383 of Indian Succession Act for revocation of Succession Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner before the Civil Judge (Sr. Div) 1st, Dhanbad vide Misc., Case No. 10/2007. It was averred by the opposite party no. 1 that she is the legally married wife of deceased Pradip Dhar and opposite party no. 2 is the son out of said wedlock. It was further pleaded that the petitioner – Rinu Dhar is the forged one and has no connection with the deceased and the Succession Certificate has been obtained fraudulently in her favour. It was also averred that Misc. Case No. 75/1996, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the opposite party no. 1 before the S.D.J.M. Kalyani, District – Nadia and the same was allowed and opposite party nos. 1 and 2 were directed to be paid Rs.1,000 and Rs.800 respectively per month as maintenance. The opposite party no. 1 examined three witnesses to establish her case whereas petitioner had examined four witnesses. 6. After hearing the parties and considering facts and circumstances, the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhanbad vide Judgment dated 10.07.2014 allowed the application for revocation of Succession Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 08.06.2007. Against the said Judgment dated 10.04.2014, petitioner preferred Appeal vide Misc. Succession Certificate Case No. 19/2014. After hearing the parties, the Principal District Judge, Dhanbad, vide Judgment dated 07.01.2020, in Misc. Succession Certificate Appeal, dismissed the same affirming the order dated 10.04.2014, passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division – cum – District Delegate in Misc. Case No. 72/2008. Being aggrieved, petitioner has knocked door of this Court. 7.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Sanjay Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the Court below did not consider the documentary evidence such as Saving Certificate, Kuber Plan Scheme deposited in UKO Bank, Identity Card as well as marriage certificate issued by Kalyanshwari Temple and family member certificate certifying relationship of the petitioner and the deceased. Petitioner was the legally wedded wife of Late Pradip Dhar and certificate to that effect was also issued by the statutory body. The Court below has exercised their 2 jurisdiction in perfunctory manner relying only on the order passed by the Civil Court, Nadia, which cannot be in any manner accepted to be a valid legal marriage because in a maintenance case, standard of proof of valid marriage is not required. Learned counsel further argues that petitioner was never a party in the proceeding before the Nadia Court. Petitioner is the legally wedded wife and has the right over the property of the deceased. The opposite parties have tried to make out a case on flimsy grounds and merely because of the order passed by the Nadia Court, they have tried to grab the properties of the deceases and ousted the petitioner from her rightful claim. The impugned orders are fit to be quashed and appropriate relief may be granted to the petitioner. 8. Mr. Arpan Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties submits that the order of the District Delegate clearly mentions that the marriage of the petitioner with Late Pradeep Dhar was void and illegal. The earlier Succession Certificate was obtained by the petitioner by playing fraud upon the Court by not disclosing about marital status of deceased with the opposite party no. 1. Learned counsel further argues that marriage of the petitioner had never taken place with the deceased and even if it was performed, the same is void in the eyes of law and on that ground also petitioner is not entitled to succeed estate left by her husband. Opposite party no. 1 is the legally wedded wife and is entitled for the claim. This application has no merits and is fit to be dismissed. 9. From rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that opposite party no. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the deceased who committed suicide on 19.08.2006. The Judgment passed by the Kalyani Court, Nadia, West Bengal also clearly establishes the fact that the deceased was married with the opposite party no. 1 and the Court had also passed order for maintenance of opposite party no. 1 and her son. The evidence recorded in that Court also shows that the deceased had emphatically admitted that he was married with opposite party no. 1 on 19.07.1990. The Court below has rightly held that the photographs of deceased and the petitioner in temple premises cannot be a decisive factor to establish their marriage. The so-called marriage certificate 3 issued from Temple Administration, Kalyaneshwari Temple, Maithon did not bear signature of either of the parties. The petitioner did not make the opposite parties as party in earlier Succession Case No. 10/2007 and as such opposite parties had no occasion to contest the case. The petitioner was made nominee to the assets and benefits belonging to the deceased but the law is clear on this point that even a nominee either in the service record or in the documents of any assets, money or account, is not entitled to claim and raise the benefits solely to her/his interest rather the nominee acts as a trustee whose duty is to distribute the assets left by the deceased according to the law amongst the heirs and successors. The Court below has rightly held that the opposite parties are the rightful persons entitled to the money, assets and amount left by the deceased. 10. Having heard counsel for the parties and considering facts and circumstances of the case, I find no illegality or any infirmity in the order passed by the Courts below. The Courts below have discussed entire details and I find no error or discrepancies in the findings of the Courts below. No ground is made out for any interference. This application is accordingly dismissed and the Judgments and orders passed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court are hereby upheld. 11.
Decision
Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) 4