Ghuni Devi vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.

This appeal has been filed against the order dated 22.12.2004, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court, Ranchi in Succession Case No. 93/1999, whereby the learned court below has been pleased to allow the application of the respondent no. 2 under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and has issued certificate in her favour.

Counsel for the appellant submits that one Rajman Singh who was the employee of Foundry Forge Plant (Heavy Engineering Corporation) had expired on 13.01.1997 and original applicant in the Succession Case (respondent no. 2 herein) had filed an application for succession before the learned court below claiming herself to be the daughter and the sole legal heir and successor of late Rajman Singh. The specific case of the applicant was that the mother of the applicant had expired prior to her father in the year 1991 and after the death of her mother, her father had not solemnized any second marriage and she was the only legal heir of the deceased Rajman Singh.

Counsel submits that specific case of the appellant herein, was that the appellant had filed objection petition before the Authority and had submitted that first wife of Rajman Singh expired prior to his death and he solemnized second marriage with the appellant in the year 1995 at Gumla. After the marriage, they were living peacefully at Sector-III, Dhurwa, Ranchi and after the death of Rajman Singh, the appellant was the only legal heir and successor of Rajman Singh. As a part of the amount in connection with post death benefit of Rajman Singh was already released in favour of the original applicant, the appellant herein had prayed that remaining portion should be released in her favour being the widow of Rajman Singh.

Counsel for the appellant while advancing his argument has submitted by referring to the lower court records that number of witnesses had deposed in favour of the appellant and there was sufficient material on record to establish that the appellant was the second wife of Rajman Singh. He submits that even the appellant was availing the medical benefits in as much as the medical card was also opened in her favour. He has referred to the evidence of the appellant before the learned court below and has submitted that the appellant had deposed that after the death of Rajman Singh, there was no other legal heir and successor of the deceased except the appellant. Accordingly, he submits that the appellant ought to have declared as sole legal heir and successor of Rajman Singh. He submits that the impugned order is perverse and is fit to be set-aside.

After hearing counsel for the appellant and after considering the materials on record, this court finds that the only point to be determined in this appeal is as to whether the learned court below has rightly allowed the application filed by the applicant and declared her to be the daughter and sole legal heir of late Rajman Singh and whether the claim of the appellant that she is the second wife of Rajman Singh has been rightly rejected?

This court finds that applicant of the succession case had produced two witnesses apart from herself. A.W.-1 was the applicant herself; A.W.-2 was the person living behind the quarter of the deceased and A.W.-3 was the manager of the legal section of Heavy Engineering Corporation where Rajman Singh was working. Upon perusal of the evidences on behalf of the applicant, it is apparent that the witnesses have fully supported her case that she was the sole daughter and sole legal heir and successor of Rajman Singh and that the official record of Heavy Engineering Corporation also indicated that the applicant was the sole legal heir and daughter of late Rajman Singh on the basis of which a portion of post death benefits were also disbursed to her. All the witnesses on behalf of the applicant , including A.W.-2, who was the neighbour , has clearly deposed that the applicant was the only daughter of Rajman Singh whom he knows since her birth and has fully supported her case by stating that Rajman Singh never performed any second marriage. All the witnesses of the applicant has clearly deposed that Rajman Singh did not perform second marriage. A.W 3 has stated that as per official record of Heavy Engineering Corporation, there is no record showing second marriage of Rajman Singh.

So far as the objector (present appellant) is concerned, she has examined altogether five witnesses including herself. She has claimed in her deposition that she is the second wife of Rajman Singh and that second marriage was solemnised after death of the first wife. She has also claimed that Rajman Singh has no issue from the first wife. The deposition of the objector is contradictory to the objection filed by her, in as much as she has stated in the objection petition that the daughter of the first wife of Rajman Singh i.e the applicant of the case, has been paid a part amount of post death benefits by Heavy Engineering Corporation and has stated that the remaining part should be paid to her. Thus this court finds that in the objection petition filed by the objector before the learned court below, the status of the applicant that she is the daughter of Rajman Singh was never disputed. Thus the objector is not consistent in her stand. The objector has also examined one witness from Gumla District as O.W.-1 who has exhibited so called marriage certificate which is on a sada paper and cannot be said to be a marriage certificate. Further this witness on cross examination failed to give the basic details of Rajman Singh i.e his age etc. and also failed to give his whereabouts. The other witnesses on behalf of the objector have also supported the case of the objector but failed to give the essential details regarding the marriage including the time and date of second marriage of Rajman Singh. The witnesses of the objector have also stated that Rajman Singh had no issue from his first wife which itself is contradictory to the objection petition filed by the objector. This court finds that the case of the applicant was believed by the learned court below and it was found that the evidence of the applicant is consistent so far as the witnesses are concerned and the case of the objector was disbelieved on account of self contradictory stand of the objector as mentioned above and inconsistent statement of the witnesses and the so called marriage certificate prepared on sada paper was also disbelieved. The learned court below has also considered the fact that the service record of Rajman Singh did not indicate that he ever solemnised second marriage and his immediate neighbour has also deposed that Rajman Singh never solemnised second marriage as claimed by the objector. The learned court below has considered that the applicant, being the daughter of Rajman Singh, was named as nominee in the records of H.E.C. This court finds that the learned court below has given detailed reasoning by considering all the witnesses who had deposed and has rightly rejected the case of the objector on account of inconsistent stand of the objector and inconsistent evidence which were led by the objector and considering the fact that the service record of Rajman Singh did not indicate any second marriage much less second marriage with the objector. Further this court finds that the learned court below has rightly accepted the case of the applicant considering the service records of Rajman Singh and also consistent witnesses of the applicant.

In aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned court below. Accordingly, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed.