Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 4010 (ALL)

Madhu Bala Srivastava v. Saroj Srivastava Alleged

2015-12-16

ANANT KUMAR, SATYENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN

body2015
JUDGMENT Anant Kumar,J. This appeal under Section 384 of the India Succession Act, 1925 has been filed against judgment and order dated 02.09.2008 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malihabad, Lucknow in Misc. Case No. 187-C/2007 (Smt. Saroj Srivastava V/s Madhubala Srivastava) arising out of proceeding of Misc. Case No. 108 of 2007 (Madhubala Srivastava vs. Estate of Late Shyam Swaroop Srivastava), by which Succession Certificate No.145/2007 was granted in favour of the appellantpplicant Smt. Madhubala Srivastava. Brief facts, relevant for disposal of this appeal, are that appellant Smt. Madhubala Srivastava and Sri Sanjay Srivastava moved a petition under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 bearing no. 108 of 2007 for grant of Succession Certificate regarding death and security of her husband Late Shyam Swaroop Srivastava. After hearing the parties and completing formalities, the Succession Certificate was granted in favour of Madhubala Srivastabva regarding sum of Rs.13,04,590/-, as detailed in schedule of the petitionpplication. After grant of the Succession Certificate, one Smt. Saroj Srivastava moved an application/petition (Misc. Case No. 187-C of 2007) under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act with a prayer for revocation of the Succession Certificate granted in favour of Madhubala Srivastava. It was further prayed for filing of suitable criminal complaint against Madhubala Srivastava. Thereafter, the notices were issued to the opposite parties and case was taken up by the Trial Court. Opportunity was given for oral evidence to the applicant/petitioner (Saroj Srivastava), but on her behalf no oral evidence was led and on her behalf an endorsement was made in the order-sheet dated 18.07.2008 by her counsel to the effect that the applicant/petitioner Saroj Srivastava does not want to give oral evidence, then the case was fixed for evidence of opposite party Madhubala Srivastava. On behalf of opposite party Madhubala Srivastava, statement of Madhubala Srivastava herself was recorded. She was cross-examined by the applicant/petitioner (Saroj Srivastava) and after hearing the parties learned Trial Court had revoked the said Succession Certificate granted in favour of Madhubala Srivastava vide impugned order dated 2.9.2008. Hence, this appeal. 2 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 3. While filing the petitionpplication under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, the appellant Smt. Madhubala Srivastava had stated that Sri Shyam Swaroop Srivastava died on 20.05.2005 leaving behind Smt. Madhubala Srivastava alias Saroj Srivastava and Sri Sanjay Srivastava as the legal heirs. 2 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 3. While filing the petitionpplication under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, the appellant Smt. Madhubala Srivastava had stated that Sri Shyam Swaroop Srivastava died on 20.05.2005 leaving behind Smt. Madhubala Srivastava alias Saroj Srivastava and Sri Sanjay Srivastava as the legal heirs. Sri Shyam Swaroop Srivastava was a government servant in U.P. Jal Nigam. His services thereafter merged with the Uttaranchal Jal Nigam (Uttrakhand). The deceased Shyam Swaroop Srivastava was married with the appellant Madhubala Srivastava, however, her in-laws have given a nick name to her as "Saroj Srivastava", which was recorded in the provident fund records of the deceased and at that time, however, real and exact name of the appellant was "Madhubala Srivastava" and later on in the entire records including the service book of the deceased Shyam Swaroop Srivastava name of wife of the deceased had been written as Madhubala Srivastava and being the wife of the deceased, she was entitled for grant of Succession Certificate. 4. While filing the application/petition for revocation of the Succession Certificate, Smt. Saroj Srivastava had made out a case that she is the legally wedded wife of late Shyam Swaroop Srivastava. She was married in the year 1965, who is originally resident of Village and Post Barethi, Allahabad and out of said wedlock eight children were born and now surviving issue is only Sri Sanjay Srivastava/opposite party no. 2. Husband of the petitionerppliant Smt. Saroj Srivastava was employed as Junior Engineer in the year 1970 and gradually he was promoted up to the post of Assistant Engineer. The petitioner Saroj Srivastava being a house hold lady remained in her in-laws house in village and post Barethi, District- Allahabad and due to transferable job, she could not live for a long time in the place of posting of her husband. The petitioner Saroj Srivastava was never divorced by late Shyam Swaroop Srivastava. In his lifetime, Shyam Swaroop Srivastava engaged opposite party-Smt. Madhubala Srivastava as a maid for his son Sri Sanjay Srivastava. Husband of the petitioner Shyam Swaroop Srivastava had died on 20.05.2005 due to heart failure at Lucknow and his body was sent to his parental house and his cremation was held at Allahabad. In his lifetime, Shyam Swaroop Srivastava engaged opposite party-Smt. Madhubala Srivastava as a maid for his son Sri Sanjay Srivastava. Husband of the petitioner Shyam Swaroop Srivastava had died on 20.05.2005 due to heart failure at Lucknow and his body was sent to his parental house and his cremation was held at Allahabad. After death of Shyam Swaroop Srivastava, name of the petitioner Saroj Srivastava alongwith her son Sanjay Srivastava was mutated in the revenue records at Village Sahbazpur and Barethi, District - Allahabad. In Pariwar Register, name of the petitioner Saroj Srivastava and her son Sanjay Srivastaba have been going on since 1995-96. Even in the Voter List and Ration Card also name had been recorded. The defendant no. 1, i.e. appellant Madhubala Srivastava before this Court had fraudulently moved an application for grant of Succession Certificate in her favour in respect of debts and security left by the deceased deliberately and wrongly showing herself as the widow of the deceased, however, she had no relation with him. The malafidies of the appellant/defendant No. 1 (Madhubala Srivastava) is apparent from perusal of the application for grant of Succession Certificate in which at page no. 1 name of Madhubala Srivastava wife of Shyam Swaroop Srivastava has been written and at page no. 2 in para 3 line 4 and 5 Smt. Madhubala Srivastava alias Saroj Srivastava has been written. In fact Saroj Srivastava never used "alias Smt. Madhubala Srivastava" and in service record "alias Smt. Madhubala Srivastava" has not been recorded. According to her own application for Succession Certificate filed by Smt. Madhubala Srivastava, in para 3 she has shown her age 53 years, and age of Sanjay Srivastava is 33 years and in para 7 marriage has been shown in the year 1977 and she had said that Sanjay Srivastava was born with the above wedlock, which falsify the above story of defendant no. 1. 5. Smt. Madhubala Srivastav is the daughter of Ram Prasad Srivastava resident of 100 Kachauri Gali, Unnao and Smt. Saroj Srivastava is the daughter of late Chandrika Prasad Srivastava resident of Village Jalapur, Post Sadar, now Visunderpur, Mirzapur. Late Shyam Swaroop Srivastava could not have married with other women in the lifetime of the applicant (Smt. Saroj Srivastava), who was his legally wedded wife. 6. Late Shyam Swaroop Srivastava could not have married with other women in the lifetime of the applicant (Smt. Saroj Srivastava), who was his legally wedded wife. 6. The applicant/petitioner Smt. Saroj Srivastava had filed a testamentary case for succession under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act in the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad vide Case No. 21/07 in which Sri Sanjay Srivastava has filed his counter affidavit and has concealed the fact of pendency of the present succession case, despite the service of notice. 7. Smt. Madhubala Srivastava, in connivance with Sanjay Srivastava, by playing a fraud concealed the true fact, has secured the above Succession Certificate impersonating herself the wife of Late Shyam Swaroop Srivastava and had played fraud upon the Hon'ble Court. The Succession Certificate has been obtained by Madhubala Srivastava, who was neither the legal heir of the deceased Shyam Swaroop Srivastava nor had any relationship with him. Since the Succession Certificate has been obtained by playing fraud, misrepresenting the fact and the same has been issued to the wrong person, the same is liable to be dismissed and prayer was made for revoking the said certificate. 8. Smt. Madhubala Srivastava appeared in the said case before the Trial Court, filed objection denying the allegations and asserting herself as the legally wedded wife of late Shyam Swaroop Srivastava and got her statement recorded. 9. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner (Madhubala Srivastava) has argued that since both the parties, i.e., Saroj Srivastava and Madhubala Srivastava have alleged that they are legally wedded wives of Shyam Swaroop Srivastava, but it is a disputed fact between the parties and it can not be proved only by oral evidence. It is evident from the record that the respondent Smt. Saroj Srivastava has neither examined herself as witness before the trial court nor has she adduced any oral evidence to prove that she is a legally wedded wife of Sri Shyam Swaroop Srivastava. It is further stated that whatever documentary evidence has been produced on behalf of petitioner Smt. Saroj Srivastava, no inference can be drawn that she was legally wedded wife of late Shyam Swaroop Srivastava. So, the learned Trial Court has committed a manifest error in revoking the Succession Certificate granted in favour of appellant-petitioner (Smt. Madhubala Srivastava). It is further stated that whatever documentary evidence has been produced on behalf of petitioner Smt. Saroj Srivastava, no inference can be drawn that she was legally wedded wife of late Shyam Swaroop Srivastava. So, the learned Trial Court has committed a manifest error in revoking the Succession Certificate granted in favour of appellant-petitioner (Smt. Madhubala Srivastava). It is further stated that the case of the applicant-Smt. Saroj Srivastava was not covered under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The said Succession Certificate granted under Section 383 may be revoked only on the grounds mentioned in the said Succession Act, which are as follows: - Section 383 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 383. Revocation of certificate.--A certificate granted under this Part may be revoked for any of the following causes, namely (a) that the proceedings to obtain the certificate were defective in substance; (b) that the certificate was obtained fraudulently by the making of a false suggestion, or by the concealment from the Court of something material to the case; (c) that the certificate was obtained by means of an untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant thereof, though such allegation was made in ignorance or inadvertently; (d) that the certificate has become useless and inoperative through circumstances; (e) that a decree or order made by a competent Court in a suit or the proceeding with respect to effects comprising debts or securities specified in the certificate renders it proper that the certificate should be revoked. 10. None of the conditions as stipulated under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act were existing. The applicant Smt. Saroj Srivastava has patently failed to prove that any fraud was played upon the Court for obtaining said certificate or any material concealment was made from the court. It was also not proved before the Court that certificate was obtained by making untrue facts. It is further stated that Smt. Madhubala Srivastava had examined herself as a witness before the Trial Court and she was thoroughly cross-examined by the applicant/petitioner Smt. Saroj Srivastava but on her cross examination no such material came out which may prove that she had given a false statement before the Court. It is further stated that Smt. Madhubala Srivastava had examined herself as a witness before the Trial Court and she was thoroughly cross-examined by the applicant/petitioner Smt. Saroj Srivastava but on her cross examination no such material came out which may prove that she had given a false statement before the Court. It was further stated that in the service record, deceased Shyam Swaroop Srivastava had shown Smt. Madhubala Srivastava as his wife and in the pension papers also she was shown as his wife. It was also stated that as the petitioner Smt. Saroj Srivastava moved the application for revoking the Succession Certificate alleging that she had married Shyam Swaroop Srivastava in the year 1965 whereas Sri Shyam Swaroop Srivastava who had joined his service in the year 1970 where in the service records he mentioned himself as bachelor, how it is possible that she would marry with the deceased in the year 1965. All these facts goes to show that the petitioner Smt. Saroj Srivastava was not married with the deceased Shyam Swaroop Srivastava and believing this, learned Trial Court had committed a manifest error and has also committed an illegality while revoking the Succession Certificate. 11. Against this argument, learned counsel for opposite party Smt. Saroj Srivastava has stated that as the proceedings initiated for revoking the Succession Certificate are the miscellaneous proceedings, as such, there was no need to examine Smt. Saroj Srivastava herself as a witness. She had filed her affidavit before the Trial Court and that was sufficient for statutory compliance, hence, the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that if Saroj Srivastava has not appeared before the Trial Court as a witness any adverse interference can be drawn against her. It is evident from the record that in the Kutumb Register, Ration Card and other documents, name of Smt. Saroj Srivastava has been shown as wife of late Shyam Swaroop Srivastava, as such the Trial Court has not committed any mistake in revoking the said Succession Certificate. 12. To substantiate their argument, learned counsel for the parties have placed reliance on various case laws. On behalf of appellant reliance has been placed on a case law reported in A.I.R. 2008 Supreme Court 1420 Vidyadhari & Ors. Vs. Sukhrana Bai & Ors. 12. To substantiate their argument, learned counsel for the parties have placed reliance on various case laws. On behalf of appellant reliance has been placed on a case law reported in A.I.R. 2008 Supreme Court 1420 Vidyadhari & Ors. Vs. Sukhrana Bai & Ors. As per facts of the said case Sukhrana Bai was the first wife of the deceased Sheetaldeen and she was not having any issue. Sheetaldeen had married second wife Vidyadhari and thereafter certain issues were there on her death. Sukhrana Bai and Vidyadhari both applied for Succession Certificate and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows: - "However, unfortunately, the High Court stopped there only and did not consider the question as to whether inspite of this factual scenario Vidhyadhari could be rendered the Succession Certificate. The High Court almost presumed that Succession Certificate can be applied for only by the legally wedded wife to the exclusion of anybody else. The High Court completely ignored the admitted situation that this Succession Certificate was for the purposes of collecting the Provident Fund, Life Cover Scheme, Pension and amount of Life Insurance and amount of other dues in the nature of death benefits of Sheetaldeen. That Vidhyadhari was a nominee is not disputed by anyone and is, therefore proved. Vidhyadhari had claimed the Succession Certificate mentioning therein the names of four children whose status as legitimate children of Sheetaldeen could not and cannot be disputed. This Court in a reported decision in Rameshwari Devis case (supra) has held that even if a Government Servant had contracted second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage, children born out of such second marriage would still be legitimate though the second marriage itself would be void. The Court, therefore, went on to hold that such children would be entitled to the pension but not the second wife. It was, therefore, bound to be considered by the High Court as to whether Vidhyadhari being the nominee of Sheetaldeen could legitimately file an application for Succession Certificate and could be granted the same. The Court, therefore, went on to hold that such children would be entitled to the pension but not the second wife. It was, therefore, bound to be considered by the High Court as to whether Vidhyadhari being the nominee of Sheetaldeen could legitimately file an application for Succession Certificate and could be granted the same. The law is clear on this issue that a nominee like Vidhyadhari who was claiming the death benefits arising out of the employment can always file an application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act as there is nothing in that Section to prevent such a nominee from claiming the certificate on the basis of nomination. The High Court should have realised that Vidhyadhari was not only a nominee but also was the mother of four children of Sheetaldeen who were the legal heirs of Sheetaldeen and whose names were also found in Form A which was the declaration of Sheetaldeen during his life-time. In her application Vidhyadhari candidly pointed out the names of the four children as the legal heirs of Sheetaldeen. No doubt that she herself has claimed to be a legal heir which status she could not claim but besides that she had the status of a nominee of Sheetaldeen. She continued to stay with Sheetaldeen as his wife for long time and was a person of confidence for Sheetaldeen who had nominated her for his Provident Fund, Life Cover Scheme, Pension and amount of Life Insurance and amount of other dues. Under such circumstances she was always preferable even to the legally wedded wife like Sukhrana Bai who had never stayed with Sheetaldeen as his wife and who had gone to the extent of claiming the Succession Certificate to the exclusion of legal heirs of Sheetaldeen. In the grant of Succession Certificate the court has to use its discretion where the rival claims, as in this case, are made for the Succession Certificate for the properties of the deceased. The High Court should have taken into consideration these crucial circumstances. Merely because Sukhrana Bai was the legally wedded wife that by itself did not entitle her to a Succession Certificate in comparison to Vidhyadhari who all through had stayed as the wife of Sheetaldeen, had born his four children and had claimed a Succession Certificate on behalf children also. The High Court should have taken into consideration these crucial circumstances. Merely because Sukhrana Bai was the legally wedded wife that by itself did not entitle her to a Succession Certificate in comparison to Vidhyadhari who all through had stayed as the wife of Sheetaldeen, had born his four children and had claimed a Succession Certificate on behalf children also. In our opinion, the High Court was not justified in granting the claim of Sukhrana Bai to the exclusion not only of the nominee of Sheetaldeen but also to the exclusion of his legitimate legal heirs." 13. On the basis of this case law, it is argued that even if it is presumed that Smt. Madhubala Srivastava is the second wife of the deceased Shyam Swaroop Srivastava, even then, she is entitled for Succession Certificate and in case petitioner Saroj Srivastava has got any objection, she can very well file a regular Civil Suit and prove her case before the Court. 14. Another case law cited is AIR 1994 Supreme Court 133 S.P.S. Balasubramanyam Vs. Suruttayan alias Andai Padayachi and others. In the said case law, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "If a man and women live together for long years as husband and wife, then a presumption arises in law of legality of marriage existing between the two. But the presumption is rebuttable. Mere omission to mention the name of a woman who was living as a concubine and her offspring in the Will executed by the father-in-law cannot destroy the presumption which otherwise arises in law. In the Hindu society no father would, normally, tolerate behaviour of his son of having a concubine, therefore, the mere fact that father of husband while executing the Will did not mention the name of concubine or her offspring is of no consequence. Similarly the absence of any reference to concubine and her children in the compromise entered between husband and his brother is totally irrelevant circumstance. Since the suit was filed for partition by one of the members of joint Hindu family for his share on strength of will executed by his father and since his children were not given any share by his father they could not have been party either in the suit or in the compromise decree. The absence of their names therefore could not be taken adversely for destroying the presumption." 15. The absence of their names therefore could not be taken adversely for destroying the presumption." 15. In another case law cited as AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1441 Vidhyadhar Vs. Mankikrao and Another , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in para 16 is as under: " where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct as has been held in a series of decisions passed by various High Courts and the Privy Council beginning from the decision in Sardar Gurbaksha Singh v. Gurdial Singh, AIR 1927 PC 230 . This was followed by the Lahore High Court in Kirpa Singh v. Ajaipal Singh, AIR 1930 Lahore 1 and the Bombay High court in Martand Pandharinath Chaudhari v. Radabai Krishnarao Deshmukh, AIR 1931 Bombay 97. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Gulla Kharagjit Corpenter v. Narsingh Nandkishore Rawat, AIR 1970 Madh Pra 225, also followed the Privy Council decision in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh's case ( AIR 1927 PC 230 ) (Supra). The Allahabad High Court in Arjun Singh v. Virender Nath, AIR 1971 Allahabad 29 held that if a party abstains from entering the witness box, it would give rise to an inference adverse against him. Similarly, a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Bhagwan Dass v. Bhishan Chand, AIR 1974 Punj and Har 7, drew a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act against a party who did not enter into the witness box." 16. Another case law cited on behalf of appellant is a judgement of this High Court passed by a Single Judge in First Appeal From Order No.172 of 1978; Smt. Jagat Nandini and Anr. vs. Inder Pal. Para 4 of this judgement is as under: "Having heard learned counsel for the parties, there is no room to doubt any longer that the capacity of the nominee under the life insurance policy is purely that of an agent. He collects the amounts from the insurer and pays it to the persons entitled to receive the same and, as such, gets no interest to the estate of the deceased. He is not even a beneficiary in respect of the estate left by the deceased. He collects the amounts from the insurer and pays it to the persons entitled to receive the same and, as such, gets no interest to the estate of the deceased. He is not even a beneficiary in respect of the estate left by the deceased. This has been made amply clear by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarbati Devi Vs. Smt. Usha Devi (1984) 55 Comp Case 214 (SC), which has affirmed the Full Bench decision of this court in Raja Ram V. Mata Prasad (1973) 43 Comp Case 53 (All) (FB). This proposition indeed is not disputed from the side of the respondent before me. It was submitted, however, that since the respondent is considered as an agent, the succession could not have been issued in favour of the appellants. I am unable to agree. Since the persons entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased would be the heirs under the concerned law in case the assured died intestate, the respondent can lay no claim to any share in the estate. The amount covered under the policy becomes part and parcel of the estate of the deceased and to this estate the persons entitled to recover shall only be those who are heirs either under the personal law governing the same or under a will in case the deceased left any. For the respondent, the averment made in the application which he moved for revocation was that the certificate had been obtained fraudulently inasmuch as it was not disclosed that the premium under the policy was paid out of the private business of the respondent under the belief that his half share would be paid on the maturity of the policy as he had been named therein as co-nominee. According to him, as stated in the application, the policy amount represents the profits of the business in which the respondent had half share. Without entering into the veracity or otherwise of these averments, suffice it to say that this cannot constitute one of the grounds for revocation of the Succession Certificate as is manifest on a perusal of Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, None of the clauses thereunder can be said even remotely to enable the respondent to seek revocation of the Succession Certificate, which has been issued in favour of the appellants. In case the respondent has any claim over the policy amount, he may proceed against these heirs representing the estate of the deceased. But on that account he cannot lay claim for himself to the grant of Succession Certificate in full or even in part. 17. Whereas, on behalf of learned counsel for the respondent-opposite party Saroj Srivastava, reliance has been placed on a case law reported in 1997 Law Suit (All) 247, Khushi Ram Dedwal V/S Additional Judge, Small Causes Court / Prescribed Authority, Meerut. As per facts of this case under the proceedings under Rent Control Act known as Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting Rent and Eviction) Act 1972, in para 7 of the judgment, the court held as under: "The Court has been given power under the said proviso for production of the deponent for cross-examination, if it is necessary. The provision itself is clear that the Court has discretion to permit for cross-examination and such discretion should be exercised only when cross-examination is necessary. The necessity for cross-examination will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. If an application is filed by a party for cross-examination of a deponent by an affidavit, he must give reasons why cross-examination is necessary. It is not in every case that once an application is filed for cross-examination it has to be permitted as a general rule. It is true that the veracity of averments made in affidavits can be tested by cross-examination but unless it is established that the veracity of facts stated in the affidavit is necessary to be tested by cross-examination, the party must give reasons as to which particular fact and under what circumstances and for what reasons such cross-examination is necessary in the context and facts and circumstances of the case. U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 applies for determining certain rights of the landlord, tenant and such other persons who claim the benefit under the provisions of the said Act. This Act itself provides the manner in which the evidence is to be taken by the parties concerned. The purpose of the enactment of any of the provisions has to be taken into account while permitting a party to cross-examine the deponent of an affidavit." 18. Another case law cited is 2010 AIR SCW 121 Chaillamma v. Tilaga. Para Nos. This Act itself provides the manner in which the evidence is to be taken by the parties concerned. The purpose of the enactment of any of the provisions has to be taken into account while permitting a party to cross-examine the deponent of an affidavit." 18. Another case law cited is 2010 AIR SCW 121 Chaillamma v. Tilaga. Para Nos. 9 and 10 of the said case law is as under: - "The question as to whether a valid marriage had taken place between the deceased Subramanya and the first respondent is essentially a question of fact. In arriving at a finding of fact indisputably the learned trial Judge was not only entitled to analyze the evidences brought on record by the parties hereto so as to come to a conclusion as to whether all the ingredients of the valid marriage as contained in Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 stand established or not; a presumption of a valid marriage having regard to the fact that they had been residing together for a long time and has been accepted in the society as husband and wife, could also be drawn. It is true, as has been contended by Mr. Chatruvedi, that the appellant had brought on record certain documents to show that the deceased in the year 1986 while applying for his employment in Mysore Power Corporation showed his status as single, but a specific finding of fact had been arrived at by the courts below that all the subsequent documents clearly showed that not only the deceased married the first respondent but also he sought for allotment of a quarter as a married person. It is of some significance to notice that one Subha Rao, a personnel officer of the KPC while examining himself as P.W. 5 categorically stated that in terms of the rules for allotment of quarter by the company commonly known as 'Township Committee Rules' quarters where allotted to married persons only and clubbed accommodation were provided to the bachelors. (10) It is beyond any cavil of doubt that in determining the question of valid marriage, the conduct of the deceased in a case of his nature would be of some relevance. It on the aforementioned premise, the learned trial Judge has arrived at a finding that the deceased Subramanya had married the first respondent, no exception thereto can be taken. It on the aforementioned premise, the learned trial Judge has arrived at a finding that the deceased Subramanya had married the first respondent, no exception thereto can be taken. A long cohabitation and acceptance of the society of a man and woman as husband and wife goes a long way in establishing a valid marriage." 19. On the basis of assertion, it is to be seen as to whether the trial Court has committed an error of law in revoking the Succession Certificate granted in favour of Smt. Madhubala Srivastava/opposite party no. 1. A perusal of the impugned order, shows that the Trial Court has totally relied upon the documents filed by the petitioner Smt.Saroj Srivastava before the Trial Court with a list 8-C, which are certified copies of the Pariwar Register, death certificate of the deceased, Transfer Certificate of K.P. Inter college, Pratapgarh, Khatauni of Tehsil Hadia, Allahabad and copy of Ration Card etc. and it is held that in these documents name of petitioner Smt. Saroj Srivastava is mentioned as the wife of Shyam Swaroop Srivastava, whereas documents filed on behalf of opposite party Smt. Madhubala Srivastava with a list 21-C, which are the joint photographs of the appellant Smt. Madhubala Srivastava and the deceased Shyam Swaroop Srivastava, affidavit of Sanjay Srivastava, family certificate in favour of Madhubala Srivastava, Service Book of Shyam Swaroop Srivastava, etc. had been discarded on the ground that they are photo-copies. 20. To look into the matter properly, the service records of the deceased were summoned from the department to see as to whether the deceased had named Sri Saroj Srivastava as his nominee or Smt. Madhubala Srivastava. The entire original service record of the deceased Shyam Swaroop Srivastava was produced in the Court and was perused in presence of both the parties. It is apparent from the record that when the deceased was about to retire he had filled the pension papers and in the said pension papers, he had mentioned Smt. Madhubala Srivastava as his nominee for receiving the family pension and gratuity in case of his death. A joint photograph of the deceased Shyam Swaroop Srivastava and Smt. Madhubala Srivastava is also on record. The pension papers bearing the signature of deceased Shyam Swaroop Srivastava have not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent. A joint photograph of the deceased Shyam Swaroop Srivastava and Smt. Madhubala Srivastava is also on record. The pension papers bearing the signature of deceased Shyam Swaroop Srivastava have not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent. It has further been noted that name of Madhubala Srivastava is mentioned in the said form as his wife. The Service book of the deceased is also available in the original form and there is a proforma signed by him purported to be consent letter-cum-appointment of beneficiary under GSLI scheme of Life Insurance Corporation. In the said form also name of Madhubala Srivastava has been shown and her relationship has been shown as his wife. So, perusal of the service record of the deceased, particularly, the documents, which were executed by the deceased before his death, it shows that he has shown Smt. Madhubala Srivastava as his wife. As per record, it is apparent that all these aspects have not properly been considered by the learned Trial Court and merely on the basis of surmise and conjuncture without having any oral evidence on record adduced on behalf of Smt. Saroj Bala Srivastava, the order granting Succession Certificate in favour of Smt. Madhubala Srivastava has wrongly been revoked. In this regard, there is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was a disputed fact before the Court as to whether the respondent is a legally wedded wife of deceased or not. This fact could not be determined by the Court unless the oral evidence has been adduced by the parties to support their documentary evidence filed by both the parties. On behalf of Smt. Madhubala Srivastava, she had entered into witnesses box and her statement was recorded and she had undergone a lengthy cross-examination and in the cross-examination no such material has came out which could impeach the credibility of the said witness to encounter the said oral evidence, no oral evidence has been adduced on behalf of respondent, in spite of the fact that sufficient opportunity was granted by the Trial Court. So, an adverse interference should have been drawn by the Trial Court against Saroj Srivastava. 21. So, an adverse interference should have been drawn by the Trial Court against Saroj Srivastava. 21. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the aforesaid case and to our view, the learned Trial Court has committed manifest error in allowing objection and revoking its earlier order whereby Succession Certificate was granted in favour of Madhubala Srivastava. Hence, this appeal deserves to be allowed, and is, hereby, allowed and impugned order dated 02.09.2008 passed in Misc. Case No. 187-C/2007 is set aside and the Succession Certificate granted in favour of Madhubala Srivastava is affirmed. However, it is made clear that parties are at liberty to take appropriate legal recourse before the regular Civil Court and in case any of the parties take such recourse, the finding recorded by this Court in this judgement shall not be having any binding effect upon the said Civil Court and the Civil Court will be at liberty to take its independent decision on the basis of evidence adduced before the court concerned. 22. Let the original service record be sent back from where the same were summoned. Parties to bear their own costs.