JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 ('the Act') has been filed by the respondent aggrieved against the order dated 15.10.2001 passed by the District Judge, Jodhpur on an application filed by the respondent under Section 372 of the Act, whereby besides rejecting the claim of the respondent for grant of succession certificate, the prayer made by the appellant also was rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed an application under Section 372 of the Act impleading the appellant as respondent inter-alia with the averments that he was nephew of one Rakha Ram, who was unmarried and had adopted him during his life time, the said Rakha Ram was working as 'Jhaduwala' with the Jodhpur Municipality and died on 19.6.1992. The succession certificate was sought for the Gratuity amount Rs. 9,888/-, Group Life Insurance Rs. 5,000/-, Encashment of Leave Rs. 6,247/-, New Pay-scale Rs. 880/- difference of Pay - scale Rs. 355/- and Salary for the month of June Rs. 1,800/- i.e. Total of Rs. 24,090/-. 3. A reply to the said application was filed by the appellant and fact of death of Rakha Ram was admitted. She denied the fact that the respondent was adopted son of Rakha Ram. It was stated that he was nephew of Rakha Ram and his father's name was Ramchandra. She claimed that she was married to Rakha Ram by family custom about 13 years before his death and was living with him as wife and out of their wedlock, one son Deepak was born, who was aged about 7 years. It was alleged that when she was in mourning, the respondent got certain blank papers signed for the purpose of compassionate appointment for her, which were misused by him and he informed the Municipal Corporation in this regard. When she tried for compassionate appointment with the Municipal Corporation several issues were raised by him and ultimately, she was provided employment on compassionate ground on account of death of Rakha Ram. She claimed that in the voter-lists for the year 1984 & 1994, the father's name of Kanhaiyalal is recorded as Ramchandra and her husband's name is recorded as Rakha Ram. She claimed that in the voter-lists for the year 1984 & 1994, the father's name of Kanhaiyalal is recorded as Ramchandra and her husband's name is recorded as Rakha Ram. The name of the respondent was recorded as nominee in the Provident Fund account before the birth of Deepak, her son and prayed for grant of succession certificate in her favour. 4. The trial court framed four issues and in support of the claim, Kanhaiyalal examined himself, Mohini and Braham Das, while appellant examined herself, father Kanhaiyalal and her mother Shanti. 5. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that Kanhaiyalal has failed to prove his adoption by Rakha Ram. The learned District Judge also came to the conclusion that the appellant has failed to prove her marriage with Rakha Ram and consequently, dismissed the prayer made by both the parties for grant of succession certificate. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the order impugned passed by the learned trial court is ex-facie against the available documentary evidence on record and is based on mere contradiction in the statement of parties, the finding about marriage of the appellant with Rakha Ram has been arrived at contrary to the record and as such, the finding deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the judgment impugned passed by the learned trial court. However, the counsel fairly brought it to the notice of this Court that the appeal filed by Kanhaiyalal against the impugned judgment being SBCMA No. 139/2003 has been dismissed by this Court on 11.7.2003 summarily. 8. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the judgment of the trial court and the record of the case. 9. The appellant in support of her contention being wife of deceased Rakha Ram has produced voter-list for the year 1984 as Exhibit-1, voter-list for the year 1994 as Exhibit-2, wherein she has been shown as wife of Rakha Ram. Further she has produced Exhibit-A/1, a ration card, wherein also she has been shown as wife of Rakha Ram and Deepak has been shown as her son. Further the report card of her son Deepak has been produced as Exhibit-A/2, wherein he has been shown as son of Rakha Ram. Further she has produced Exhibit-A/1, a ration card, wherein also she has been shown as wife of Rakha Ram and Deepak has been shown as her son. Further the report card of her son Deepak has been produced as Exhibit-A/2, wherein he has been shown as son of Rakha Ram. Further it is an admitted fact that the appellant has been granted compassionate appointment by Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur as dependent of deceased Rakha Ram by order dated 18.10.1993. The trial court mainly relying on the contradictions in the statement of Sumitra, father - Kanhaiyalal, mother - Shanti regarding the date, time, place etc. of the marriage and the fact that the appellant could not give out the names of the neighbours, milkman, vegetable merchant and the pandit, who performed the marriage ceremony came to the conclusion that the appellant has failed to prove the factum of her marriage. 10. While dealing with the documentary evidence as produced by the appellant and noticed above the learned District Judge observed as under:- " tgka rd ernkrk lwph izn'kZ&,1 esa lqfe=k ds ifr dk uke jdqjke] jk'ku dkMZ esa mlds ifr dk uke j[kkjke rFkk mlds iq= nhid ds fo|ky; esa izxfr&i= esa nhid ds firk dk uke j[kkjke mYysf[kr gksus dk iz'u gS] dsoy bl vk/kkj ij ;g lkfcr ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd lqfe=kk dk fookg j[kkjke ds lkFk fgUnq fookg vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku ds vuqlkj gqvk FkkA ;g gks ldrk gS fd lqfe=k vius firk ds ;gkWa gh j[kkjke ds lkFk crkSj j[kSy jgh gks ,oa muds lEca/k ls nhid iSnk gqvk gks vkSj blh otg ls ernkrk lwph] jk'ku dkMZ rFkk izxfr&i= esa jdqjke mQZ j[kkjke ds uke dk mYys[k lqfe=k ds ifr o nhid ds firk ds crkSj gqvk gkSA tgkWa rd uxj fuxe] tks/kiqj ds }kjk foif{k;k dks j[kkjke dh fo/kok ekurs gq, mlds LFkku ij ukSdjh fn;s tkus dk iz'u gS] uxj fuxe ds fu.kZ; ls ;g U;k;ky; ck/; ugha gSA " 11. The learned District Judge failed to consider that he was dealing with the matter, wherein the parties belong to the lowest strata of the society i.e. Harijan and that all of them were wholly ill-literate and, therefore, to expect them to remember the date etc. of the marriage was expecting a bit to much from them. The learned District Judge failed to consider that he was dealing with the matter, wherein the parties belong to the lowest strata of the society i.e. Harijan and that all of them were wholly ill-literate and, therefore, to expect them to remember the date etc. of the marriage was expecting a bit to much from them. Further the failure to name the milkman and vegetable merchant pre-supposes the ability of the appellant to even afford the said articles, which apparently is highly improbable, whereby some milkman/vegetable merchant would be delivering the said articles at her place. 12. The observations made by the learned District Judge for discarding the documentary evidence on the probability that the appellant might have resided with her father as mistress of Rakha Ram and might have given birth to Deepak and that would have resulted in her name being entered in the voter-list, ration card and the report card indicating her as wife of Rakha Ram and Deepak as son of Rakha Ram, is to say the least not only beyond the record/pleadings and case of the parties, but unfortunate as well. To assume illegal relationship when there is no allegation whatsoever between the parties themselves is not expected in the given facts and circumstances only with a view to discard the documentary evidence. 13. The documentary evidence produced by the appellant as noticed here-in-before i.e. voter-lists for the year 1984 & 1994, ration card, report card of her son Deepak and the fact of her appointment with the Municipal Corporation on compassionate basis on account of death of Rakha Ram is sufficient to come to the conclusion that appellant is wife of Rakha Ram. 14. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed and the order impugned passed by the trial court is set-aside. The prayer made by the appellant in Civil Misc. Case No. 100A/95 (Kanhaiyalal v. Sumitra) for grant of succession certificate is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the District Judge, Jodhpur to further proceed with the matter in accordance with the provisions of the Succession Act and Rules for the purpose of grant of succession certificate to the appellant. 15. The record be sent back to the District Judge, Jodhpur immediately. The appellant shall appear before the trial court on 12.8.2013 for further proceedings. 16. No costs.Appeal Allowed. *******