The State of Jharkhand through D.C. Garhwa, Collectoriate v. Building, P.O
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No.247 of 2020 Babita Kumari, aged about 32 years, W/o Late Ramesh Raj, resident of village & P.O.- Forbesganj, P.S.- Forbesganj, District Arariya, (Bihar); present address- village Kajrath, P.O. Hasandag, P.S. Meral, District Garhwa, (Jharkhand) … … Appellant 1. The State of Jharkhand through D.C. Garhwa, Collectoriate Versus Building, P.O. + P.S. – Garhwa, District - Garhwa 2. General Public, Garhwa, P.O. + P.S. Garhwa District Garhwa 3. Shanti Devi, W/o Late Deo Narain Sah, resident of village Forbesganj, Ward No.25 P.O. & P.S. Forbesganj, District Arariya (Bihar) 4. Rajesh Kumar Gupta 5. Prem Prakash Gupta No.4 & 5 are sons of Late Deo Narain Sah, Resident of village – Forbesganj, P.O. & P.S. Forbesganj, District Arariya (Bihar) 6. Shweta Gupta, D/o Late Deo Narain Sah, W/o Amarjeet Gupta, resident of Bangluru, P.O. + P.S. Bangluru, District Bangluru … … Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Appellant
Legal Reasoning
to explore as to whether any prima facie finding could have been given and to leave it to the parties to get any intricate issue decided through a competent court. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order refusing to admit the case, and discussing the materials produced by the respective parties prior to admission (i.e., photocopies of various documents), while holding that the status of the petitioner needed to be declared through a competent court of civil jurisdiction, and that the appellant also had to prove she had obtained a divorce from Gopal Bharti [who was said to be her first husband by the respondents in the case], cannot be sustained in the eyes of law . 13. Accordingly, the impugned order refusing to admit the Succession Case No.10 of 2019 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the court concerned for passing a fresh order in accordance with law after giving notice to the parties . 14. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/email. Saurav (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 4
Arguments
--- : Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, Advocate : Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent No.4 : Mr. Sharabhil Ahmed, Advocate For the State : Mr. Aishwarya Prakash, AC to SC Mines 1 --- 12/29.07.2024 This appeal has been filed under section 299 of Indian Succession Act challenging the order dated 29.05.2020 passed by learned court of Principal District Judge, Garhwa in Succession Case No.10 of 2019 whereby the learned court has refused to admit the succession case and has dismissed the same. The succession case was filed under section 372 of Indian Succession Act, 1956. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in spite of service of notice through substituted mode i.e. publication through newspaper, nobody has entered appearance on behalf of the private respondent 6. 3. In the succession case, the appellant claimed to be the wife of deceased namely Ramesh Raj. The learned counsel submits that the appellant is fighting for meagre amount of Rs.48,890/- and the succession case was filed only for that purpose. He has also submitted that by the impugned order the court has refused to admit the case itself and recorded that the appellant (Babita Kumari) claiming herself as wife of Ramesh Raj could not produce any document to substantiate her marriage with Ramesh Raj and her status was required to be proved in competent court of civil jurisdiction. He has also submitted that one xerox copy of Aadhar card of Babita Kumari was produced by the private respondents stating that appellant (Babita Kumari) was wife of another person namely Gopal Bharti. 4. The learned counsel submits that the matter was required to be admitted and the parties were required to adduce evidence and that stage never arrived as the case itself was not admitted. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the procedure for disposal of succession case has been given in section 373 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and such procedure was required to be followed to come to a conclusion as to whether the appellant/parties were able to prove their case or not. The learned counsel for the appellant has also referred to the provisions of sections 372 and 373 of the Indian Succession Act. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that the appellant be given opportunity to prove her case before the Court. 7. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that a petition seeking succession certificate was filed by the appellant claiming herself to be the wife of Ramesh Raj and after issuance of notice, the opposite parties had appeared. The impugned order dated 29.05.2020 reveals that the parties were heard and the matter was posted on 02.03.2020 on the point of admission. The learned court recorded that though the appellant was claiming herself to be the wife of late Ramesh Raj and to substantiate her case she filed xerox copy of marriage certificate issued from one mandir but original was not produced. The learned court further made certain observations in connection with photocopy of the marriage certificate and has disbelieved the marriage certificate. It has also been observed that on the point of admission Rajesh Kumar Gupta 2 was physically present who claims to be the brother of Ramesh Raj and stated that his brother was never married with the applicant Babita Kumari and also produced a copy of Aadhar Card showing that Babita Kumari was earlier married with another person namely Gopal Bharti. The learned court recorded that the appellant had not stated anything regarding her first husband and her present status with respect to him. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the learned court was of the view that until the appellant succeeds to prove that she got divorce from her first husband, Gopal Bharti, through a competent court, and also succeeds to prove that her marriage with Ramesh Raj was legal and valid, a petition under section 372 of Indian Succession Act was not maintainable. Consequently, the court dismissed the case at the stage of admission itself. 9. This Court is of the considered view that the petition under section 372 of Indian Succession Act is to be signed and verified in the manner mentioned in the said section. The impugned order does not reflect that the application was not filed in terms of section 372 of Indian Succession Act. Further, section 373 gives the procedure once the application is filed. Section 373 of Indian Succession Act provides that if the district judge is satisfied that there are grounds to entertain the application, he shall fix a date for hearing thereof and cause notice of the application. Sub-section 1 of section 373 provides that the judge has to proceed to decide in a summary manner the right to the certificate. Sub- section 3 provides that if the judge cannot decide the right to the certificate without determining questions of law and fact which seem to be too intricate and difficult for determination in a summary proceeding, he may nevertheless grant a certificate to the applicant if he appears to be the person having prima facie the best title thereto. Sub-section (4) provides that when there are more applicants and it appears to the judge that more than one applicant is interested in the estate of the deceased, the judge may, in deciding to whom the certificate to be granted, have regard to the extent of interest and the fitness in other respects of the applicants. 10. It is not in dispute that after being satisfied with the content of the application, notices were issued and the parties appeared. However, the 3 learned court, without proceeding to decide the case in a summary manner as contemplated under sub-section 1 of section 373, refused to admit the case and discussed the materials produced by both the parties, although neither any oral nor documentary evidence as such was led. 11. This Court is of the considered view that the learned court should have granted opportunity to parties to lead evidence even in a summary proceeding. Certainly, it was open to the judge, upon considering the materials that could have been brought on record in the summary proceedings, to hold that the dispute was too intricate to be decided in a summary proceeding. However, such procedure was not adopted, and the case was dismissed at the admission stage itself. It was also for the judge