Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 703 (MP)

Booti Bai v. Branch Manager, SBI

2013-06-25

N.K.GUPTA

body2013
JUDGMENT : N.K.Gupta, J.- The applicant has preferred the present revision against the order dated 20.05.2010 passed by the District Judge, Anuppur in Misc. Appeal No.58/2009, whereby the order dated 10.11.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class -I, Anuppur in Succession Case No.21/2009 in which a succession certificate was issued in favour of the respondent No.3, whereas, the application of the applicant was dismissed. 2. The facts of the case, in short, are that, the respondent No.3 Ramkumar has moved an application under section 372 of Indian Succession Act to get a succession certificate due to death of his father Dashru Rathore. In that application, the applicant contested the matter on the ground that she was the second wife of the deceased Dashru. The deceased Dashru inserted the name of the applicant in various service records in the Railways, where he was employed and therefore, the applicant was given a family pension due to death of the deceased Dashru. 3. The learned Civil Judge, Class-I, after recording the evidence found that the applicant could not prove that she was wife of the deceased Dashru. The appeal filed by the applicant was also dismissed by the District Judge, Anuppur. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. After considering the evidence adduced by the parties, it is apparent that Chaiti Bai was the first wife of the deceased Dashru, who died on 17.8.2005 and thereafter, Dashru died on 11.11.2006. The first husband of the applicant Sitaram @ Chunnu died on 6.2.1999. It was for the applicant to prove that a marriage or a customary ceremony was performed, so that the applicant became the wife of the deceased Dashru. It is very strange to observe that the applicant did not mention the date of her marriage or custom of "Choori Pehnana". If she was residing with the deceased Dashru then, she should have given the particulars of that period in which she resided with the deceased. Some of the witnesses have been examined by the respondent No.3, who were the residents of village Paprodi. They have stated that they never saw the applicant residing with the deceased Dashru. So far as the document Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/5 are concerned, it cannot be said that any nomination was done by the deceased Dashru in favour of the applicant. Some of the witnesses have been examined by the respondent No.3, who were the residents of village Paprodi. They have stated that they never saw the applicant residing with the deceased Dashru. So far as the document Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/5 are concerned, it cannot be said that any nomination was done by the deceased Dashru in favour of the applicant. A document, Ex.D/3, a ration card is prepared after the death of the deceased Dashru. Since the sons of previous wife of Dashru could not get any family pension and they did not object the same and the applicant received the same in the name of the deceased Dashru then, by such document, it cannot be said that the applicant was duly married to the deceased Dashru. Mangal Singh, a witness of the applicant has accepted categorically that by custom of "Choori Pehnana" if any woman is brought in the house then, she should be told as "Kept" and not "Wife". 6. The applicant did not plead any fixed date or period, in which such marriage took place. If such custom took place during the life time of Chaiti Bai then, it has no value in the eye of law. It appears that such custom took place during the life time of Chaiti Bai and therefore, the applicant is hiding a particular date on which such custom took place. The witnesses who were examined on behalf of the applicant did not say about the definite date on which such custom took place. Under such circumstances, by omnibus statements of the witnesses, it is not proved that such custom took place between the applicant and Dashru. If the applicant was residing with Dashru as wife then, she could not get the right accrued to the wife of the deceased Dashru. After death of Chaiti Bai, the deceased Dashru died within 15 months and looking to that small period, the applicant cannot be presumed as a wife though she was residing with the deceased Dashru. Under such circumstances, both the Courts below have rightly observed that the applicant could not prove that she was the wife of the deceased Dashru and therefore, her application under section 372 of Indian Succession Act could not be accepted. Both the Courts below have rightly rejected the application filed by the applicant. Under such circumstances, both the Courts below have rightly observed that the applicant could not prove that she was the wife of the deceased Dashru and therefore, her application under section 372 of Indian Succession Act could not be accepted. Both the Courts below have rightly rejected the application filed by the applicant. There is no reason by which the revision filed by the applicant can be accepted. Consequently, it is hereby dismissed with cost. Parties shall bear their own cost. 7. A copy of the order be sent to both the Courts below alongwith their record for information.