Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1041 (RAJ)

Lalita v. Babu Lal

2013-05-20

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 27.05.1999 passed by the learned District Judge, Udaipur (for short 'the District Judge' hereinafter) in Civil Case No.76/1995, whereby the learned District Judge has rejected the objections of the appellant and ordered for issuing succession certificate in favour of the respondents. 2. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of this appeal are that Tek Chand-father of the respondent was a railway employee and died in an accident took place on 24.07.1994. The respondents applied for receiving amount of PF, Gratuity, Insurance and leave encashment benefits pertaining to the deceased Tek Chand. The Railways asked the respondents to produce succession certificate in their favour. The respondents, therefore, filed a petition under section 372 of the Indian Succession Act for obtaining succession certificate in their favour. The appellant raised objections, wherein she claimed herself to be the widow of deceased Tek Chand. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned District Judge framed as many as three issues. Parties led their evidence and after considering the same, the learned District Judge, vide judgment impugned dated 27.05.1999, has rejected the objections raised by the appellant and decided the Issue Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the respondents and against the appellant and has ordered for issuance of succession certificate in favour of the respondents for the amount mentioned in the petition. 3. Being aggrieved with the judgment dated 27.05.1999 passed by the learned District Judge, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr Vishwajeet Joshi has argued that the District Judge has grossly erred in rejecting the objections raised by the appellant and in directing to issue the succession certificate in favour of the respondents. Mr Joshi further argued that the appellant has sufficiently proved, by producing cogent evidence, that she is legally wedded wife of deceased Tek Chand and she is only entitled for the amount of PF, Gratuity, Leave Encashment, Insurance etc. pertaining to deceased Tek Chand. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that as per the statements of Kundan Lal, Ambalal, Panna Lal, Goverdhan Lal and herself, the appellant has proved the Issue No.2 in her favour but the learned District Judge has disbelieved the evidence adduced by the appellant without giving any proper reasons. pertaining to deceased Tek Chand. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that as per the statements of Kundan Lal, Ambalal, Panna Lal, Goverdhan Lal and herself, the appellant has proved the Issue No.2 in her favour but the learned District Judge has disbelieved the evidence adduced by the appellant without giving any proper reasons. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the finding given by the learned District Judge, while deciding the Issue No.2, is perverse and liable to be set aside. It is, therefore, prayed on behalf of the appellant that the order dated 27.05.1999 may be quashed and set aside with a direction to issue a succession certificate in her favour declaring her as widow of deceased Tek Chand. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment dated 27.05.1999 passed by the learned District Judge and argued that the appellant has failed to prove herself as widow of deceased Tek Chand and the learned District Judge has rightly appreciated the material available on record and not committed any illegality in deciding the Issue Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the respondents and in ordering for issuance of succession certificate in their favour. 6. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties, perused the judgment impugned and carefully scanned through the record. 7. The learned District Judge has taken into consideration the statements of the witnesses produced on behalf of the parties. It has been observed by the learned District Judge that the appellant has failed to produce any evidence proving herself to be the wife of deceased Tek Chand. It has also been observed by the learned District Judge that though the appellant has admitted that earlier she was married to Satya Narayan but she has failed to place any proof in respect of divorce of herself and her husband Satya Narayan. It has also been observed by the learned District Judge that the Exhibit-A/1, the alleged agreement entered between the appellant and the respondents cannot be relied upon as the appellant has failed to produce any Panch, who had witnessed to the said agreement to prove the same. The evidence given by witness - Amba Lal is also not reliable as though he has admitted that he was present at the time of execution of Exhibit-A/1, but his signatures are not there on the said document. The evidence given by witness - Amba Lal is also not reliable as though he has admitted that he was present at the time of execution of Exhibit-A/1, but his signatures are not there on the said document. The learned District Judge has also observed that the appellant has failed to disclose the names of brothers and sisters of deceased Tek Chand and has admitted that she never visited the ancestral house of Tek Chand situated at Mavli. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned District Judge has rejected the objection raised by the appellant and has ordered for issuance of succession certificate in favour of the respondents. 8. Upon perusal of the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has failed to produce any cogent evidence, which can prove herself to be the wife of deceased Tek Chand and therefore, the learned District Judge has not committed any illegality in passing the order impugned. 9. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******