30.01.2025 Priyanka and others v. CORAM:- HON'BLE
Case Details
(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:1)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:11)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:18) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.311 of 2024 (O&M) Reserved on: 22.01.2025 Pronounced on: 30.01.2025 Priyanka and others .....Appellants Bharpai and others .....Respondents Vs. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Ms. Anjali Sheoran, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Rajinder Goel and Mr. Manoj Sharma, Advocates for respondent No.1. DEEPAK GUPTA, J. **** This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, whereby succession cer(ficate has been directed to be issued in favour of respondent No.1 herein- Smt. Bharpai and the appellants herein. 2. As the facts emerging from record reveal, Rohtash son of Kitab Singh had joined PWD (B&R) Department in December, 1993 and a3er serving for 21 years, he expired on 7.7.2014 while working as Electrician.
Legal Reasoning
Smt. Bharpai (respondent herein) filed CWP No.19267 of 2015 before this Court alleging that State of Haryana and the concerned departments were not releasing the re(ral benefits of Rohtash in her favour despite she being her widow. The Department jus(fied its ac(on on the ground that pe((oner Bharpai had failed to produce the Legal Heir Cer(ficate. A coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 30.01.2020 transferred the ma>er to Addi(onal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narwana with the direc(on to return findings a3er recording evidence of both the par(es qua the respec(ve claim of the par(es in respect of the issuance of the RENU 2025.01.30 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page No.1 out of 7 pages (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:1)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:11)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:18) succession cer(ficate. It was further directed that in case the court finds sufficient evidence for issuance of the succession cer(ficate, the same shall be duly issued or else an appropriate orders shall be passed. 3. It was the case of the pe((oner - Smt. Bharpai i.e. respondent herein that Rohtash had performed two marriages in his life. He was firstly married to Smt. Darshana, from whom, he had five children namely Sandeep, Priyanka, Supriya, Sourabh and Kajal. A3er the death of Smt. Darshana in August 2001, Rohtash had performed Karewa Marriage with the pe((oner - Bharpai. It was further the stand of the pe((oner that she (Bharpai) was earlier married but her previous husband had expired and from him, she had two children, namely, Vikas and Pinky. A3er the death of Rohtash, she presented her case for releasing the re(ral benefits to her and the other dependent children of Rohtash along with all the necessary documents but she was asked to produce the succession cer(ficate. The appellants herein and respondent No.5 herein Sandeep were impleaded as respondents No.4 to 8 in the pe((on. They are the children of Rohtash from his first wife Smt. Darshana. 4. Respondents No.4 to 7 i.e. appellants herein contested the pe((on by denying the pe((oner - Bharpai to be widow of Rohtash and denying that she ever solemnized marriage with Rohtash. These respondents claimed that they and respondent No.8 only are en(tled for the re(ral benefits of Rohtash a3er the death of their father Rohtash. However, ironically, respondent No.8, who is the real brother of respondents No.4 to 7 i.e. appellants herein, filed a separate reply, in which he admi>ed the claim of the pe((oner - Smt. Bharpai and submi>ed that he had no objec(on, if the claim of the pe((oner was decreed. 5. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the par(es was taken on record. Trial Court came to the conclusion that pe((oner - Bharpai was the widow of Rohtash and as such, succession cer(ficate was directed to be issued in her favour along with respondents RENU 2025.01.30 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page No.2 out of 7 pages (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:1)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:11)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:18) No.4 to 8 of the pe((on, vide judgment dated 19.10.2021. The appeal filed by the appellants herein before the First Appellate Court was dismissed on 26.10.2023, affirming the findings of the trial Court. 6. Assailing the aforesaid findings, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that both the Courts below fell in error in believing the case of the claimant regarding her Karewa Marriage with deceased - Rohtash and that there was no cogent evidence to prove the said fact. It is contended that no date of marriage is disclosed by pe((oner - Bharpai with Rohtash. There was no issue born out of the alleged marriage of Rohtash with Bharpai. Bharpai had two children from her previous husband Dharmu and no evidence was produced regarding the death of said Dharmu. No evidence was produced that Bharpai had taken divorce from Dharmu before she performed alleged marriage with Rohtash. It is further contended that a3er the death of Rohtash, the documents have been manipulated to show Vikas as son of Rohtash, and Bharpai as widow of Rohtash. It is also pointed out by learned counsel that in the passbook issued by the State Bank of India in January, 2004, the name of the account holder is shown as Bharpai wife of Dharamvir. Similarly, in voter list Mark-H, Bharpai is shown as wife of Dharmu though this voter list was issued in 2004. It is also submi>ed that respondent Sandeep has since expired and therefore, only the appellants being the surviving children of Rohtash are en(tled for the all the re(ral benefits of the deceased Rohtash. 7. Refu(ng the aforesaid conten(ons, learned counsel for the respondent- Bharpai has defended the orders passed by the Courts below. It is argued that there is no illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings of facts as recorded by the Courts below and so, there is li>le scope for the interference by this Court. 8. I have considered the submissions of both the sides and have appraised the record carefully including the trial court record available on the DMS of this Court. RENU 2025.01.30 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page No.3 out of 7 pages (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:1)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:11)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:18) 9. It is not in dispute that Rohtash son of Kitab had joined the PWD (B&R) Department in 1993 and a3er serving for 21 years, he expired on 7.7.2014. Copy of the Death Cer(ficate in this regard is Ex.P-12. It is further not in dispute that Rohtash was earlier married with Smt. Darshana, who had expired in August, 2001 and from this wedlock, he had five children, who are appellants in the present case and respondent No.5 - Sandeep. It is further not in dispute that pe((oner- Smt. Bharpai was earlier married with one Dharamvir alias Dharmu and from that wedlock, she had two children namely Vikas and Pinky. 10. Pe((oner claims to have performed Karewa Marriage with Rohtash a3er the death of Darshana but neither in the pe((on nor in her tes(mony, she has disclosed the exact date, month or year of her said Karewa Marriage. However, pe((oner has relied upon various documents and numerous circumstances to show that she had performed marriage with Rohtash and was residing with him as his wife. 11. First of all, it is important to no(ce that respondent - Sandeep who has now expired in 2022 is the real brother of the present appellants i.e. the son of Rohtash from his first wife -Darshana. Said Sandeep has fully supported the case of the pe((oner. He even appeared in the witness box as PW-2 and tes(fied about the Karewa Marriage of the pe((oner -Bharpai with his father Rohtash a3er the death of Darshana. He also tes(fied that though his other four siblings used to call Smt. Bharpai as Mausi but he used to treat her as his mother. This fact appears to be reasonable considering the fact that appellants i.e. other siblings of Sandeep used to stay with their grandfather, as has come in the tes(mony of PW-1 Smt. Bharpai. 12. Apart from the tes(mony of PW-2 Sandeep, the real brother of the appellants, whose interests were common to that of the appellants, there are other circumstances to support the case of the pe((oner- Smt. Bharpai. Although Ra(on Card Ex.P1 in the name of Rohtash and another RENU 2025.01.30 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page No.4 out of 7 pages (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:1)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:11)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:18) Ra(on Card Ex.P2 in the name of Smt. Bharpai, in which said Bharpai has been shown as wife of Rohtash, have been issued a3er 2014 i.e. a3er the death of Rohtash but the School Leaving Cer(ficate of Vikas Ex.P3 reveals his date of birth to be 28.08.1995 and that he had taken admission in the school on 20.4.2009 and le3 the school on 8.8.2009. Said Vikas, who is the son of Smt. Bharpai from her previous husband, is shown as son of Rohtash in the said School Leaving Cer(ficate. This cer(ficate was issued during the life (me of Rohtash. 13. Similarly, in the Voter Card issued by the Elec(on Commission of India Ex.P-4, PAN Card Ex.P-5 as well as Aadhaar Card Ex.P6, Vikas is referred as son of Rohtash. Even in the Scheduled Caste Cer(ficate issued in the name of Vikas and Bharpai Ex.P-7 and Ex.P-8; Aadhar Card of Smt. Bharpai Ex.P-9; and Iden(ty Card issued by the Elec(on Commission of India Ex.P-10 in the name of Smt. Bharpai, they are shown as wife/son of Rohtash. Though Ex.P-7 and Ex.P-8 have been issued a3er the death of Rohtash but Ex.P-10 is the important document, which reveals that this Iden(ty Card issued by Elec(on Commission of India was issued on 17.01.2009, in which Bharpai is referred as wife of Rohtash. This document was issued much prior to the death of Rohtash, who had expired in July, 2014. There was no ques(on of Smt. Bharpai geIng her Voter Card issued by referring her as wife of Rohtash in case she had not married him. 14. It is further important to no(ce that two children, namely, Priyanka and Supriya i.e. two of the appellants, who are daughters of Rohtash from his previous wife Darshana were married during the life-(me of Rohtash in March, 2013 and May, 2014 respec(vely. Mark-C is the Marriage Invita(on Card of Supriya, whereas Mark-D is the Marriage Invita(on Card of Priyanka. Priyanka was married on 31.03.2013, whereas Supriya was married on 25.05.2014. As per the specific tes(mony of PW1- Smt. Bharpai, she had par(cipated in both these marriages as mother of the brides and the wife of Rohtash. However, DW-1 Priyanka as well as DW-2 Sourabh i.e. two of the appellants denied the said fact in their tes(mony. RENU 2025.01.30 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page No.5 out of 7 pages (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:1)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:11)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:18) 15. The tes(mony of DW-1 and DW-2 is falsified from the mere fact that in the Marriage Invita(on Cards Mark-C and Mark-D, the brides i.e. Supriya and Priyanka are shown as daughters of Smt. and Shri Rohtash. It is true that name of Smt. Bharpai is not specifically men(oned as the mother of the brides but in case Bharpai was not wife of Rohtash and as Smt. Darshana had already expired in August 2001, then the brides must have been referred as wife of “Late Smt. and Shri Rohtash”, indica(ng that Bharpai par(cipated in the marriages of Priyanka & Supriya as wife of Rohtash. 16. S(ll further, DW-1 -Smt. Priyanka in her tes(mony had admi>ed that photographs were clicked and videography was prepared at the (me of her marriage. Though DW-2 -Sourabh had denied the said fact but in case any such photographs or videography were made, the same could have been easily produced by the appellants to show that Smt. Bharpai had not par(cipated in the marriage as wife of Rohtash. 17. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has referred to the Ra(on Card Mark-G in the name of Rohtash, in which the name of his wife is shown as Darshana. However, it is no(ced that no date of issue is men(oned in the said Ra(on Card. At the same (me, in the said Ra(on Card, Darshana is shown to be the wife of Rohtash and names of the four children are men(oned. The name of Kajal, the fi3h child of Rohtash is not men(oned. As per documents, the School Cer(ficate and Aadhaar Card of Kajal Ex.D-3 and Ex.D-4, she was born on 3.3.2001, whereas as per documents Ex.D-5 and Ex.D-6 i.e. School Cer(ficate and Ra(on Card, Sourabh was born on 10.5.1997. In Mark-G i.e. Ra(on Card, the age of Sourabh is shown as one year, whereas name of Kajal is not men(oned. These circumstances indicate that this Ra(on Card was issued in 1998, when Sourabh was one year old and as such, there could be no ques(on of this Ra(on Card to show the name of Bharpai as wife of Rohtash, as at that (me his first wife Smt. Darshana was alive. RENU 2025.01.30 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page No.6 out of 7 pages (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:1)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:11)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:18) 18. Taking into considera(on all the circumstances including the documentary and oral evidence as above, the cumula(ve effect is that on the basis of preponderance of evidence, the pe((oner -Smt. Bharpai has been able to prove that she is the widow of Rohtash, as she had performed Karewa Marriage with Rohtash a3er the death of his wife- Smt. Darshana. As such, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the concurrent finding of facts as recorded by the Courts below, which are based upon proper apprecia(on of evidence. Consequently, holding the present appeal to be devoid of any merit, the same is hereby dismissed. January 30, 2025 renu (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable Yes/No Yes/No RENU 2025.01.30 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page No.7 out of 7 pages