Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1534 (JHR)

Ahilya Devi v. Sabo Debi

2016-11-16

AMITAV K.GUPTA

body2016
Order : This Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order 14.5.2009 passed by District Delegate, Dhanbad, in Succession Case No.63/2002. 2. The brief facts are that the applicant respondent Smt. Sabo Debi along with her minor sons had filed Succession Case No.63/2002 for issuance of succession certificate, in her favour, with respect to C.M.P.F amount of Rs.2,30,000/- deposited in the name of her deceased husband, Kedar Dhari. It is stated that she is the wife of deceased Kedar Dhari, who died on 7.5.1999 at Tata Memorial Hospital, Jamshedpur, who was ordinarily a resident of Kustore No.3, PS Kenduadih PO Kustore, District Dhanbad. That Opposite Party No.2 (appellant in present appeal) is the daughter of late Kedar Dhari born from his first wife namely Mahpatia Devi; that after demise of Mahpatia Devi, late Kedar Dhari had solemnized marriage with the applicant on 6.2.1993, in accordance with the Hindu rites and customs, and also informed the management about the said marriage; that from the wedlock with the applicant, three sons were born and late Kedar Dhari had also filed the nomination Form F with B.C.C.L, mentioning the applicant as his wife. It is stated that Opposite Party No.2 is married, hence the applicant is entitled to grant of succession certificate with regard to the aforesaid amount. 3. The appellant, i.e. Opposite Party No.2, filed written statement alleging therein that she is the only daughter of the deceased. That the applicant has filed the case only to grab the money as deposited by her late father in his C.M.P.F Account. It is alleged that the applicant has no relation with the deceased, neither the deceased had declared or accepted the applicant as his wife. That the present appellant (O.P No.2) has been mentioned as the daughter of the deceased in the service record. On the above grounds, it is asserted that the application for grant of succession certificate filed by the applicant is fit to be dismissed. 4. That the present appellant (O.P No.2) has been mentioned as the daughter of the deceased in the service record. On the above grounds, it is asserted that the application for grant of succession certificate filed by the applicant is fit to be dismissed. 4. The District Delegate, on consideration of the evidence led by the parties and on perusal of the documents, allowed the application of the applicant and directed for issuance of succession certificate with respect to C.M.P.F amounting to Rs.2,30,000/- deposited in the name of late Kedar Dhari lying with B.C.C.L on her furnishing indemnity bond with direction that the respondent-applicant shall apportion the amount by distributing 1/5th as share to the appellant/O.P No.2 along with interest thereon. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant, while assailing the impugned order, has submitted that the court below has committed an error in fact and in law by not appreciating the fact that in voter list the appellant has been mentioned as the daughter of late Kedar Dhari begotton from Mahapatia Devi, who was the first wife of late Kedar Dhari. That the court below has failed to consider that in service excerpt issued by B.C.C.L authorities in the name of late Kedar Dhari, the appellant/O.P No.2 has been mentioned as the nominee. That the court below had not given weight to the evidence of the witnesses who have consistently stated that the mother of this appellant was married to late Kedar Dhari and the appellant is the only daughter and successor to the estate of the late Kedar Dhari. That there is no evidence on record to suggest that the respondent applicant was ever married with late Kedar Dhari. On the above grounds, learned counsel submits that the impugned order is fit to be set aside and the succession certificate issued in favour of the respondent/O.P No.2 be cancelled. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has supported the impugned order stating that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order warranting or meriting any interference by this Court. 7. Heard. On going through the impugned order, it appears that the court below has considered the certificate issued by local M.L.A, family relation certificate issued by B.D.O and death certificate issued by Tata Memorial Hospital, Jamshedpur, which are Ext. 7. Heard. On going through the impugned order, it appears that the court below has considered the certificate issued by local M.L.A, family relation certificate issued by B.D.O and death certificate issued by Tata Memorial Hospital, Jamshedpur, which are Ext. 1,2 and 3 respectively and also considered Form F issued by B.C.C.L authorities with regard to late Kedar Dhari, Ext.4, voter identity card issued by Election Commission, Ext.5, as well as voters' list of 1995 of P.S Kusunda, Ext.6. The court below, after considering the aforesaid documents, rightly held that the respondent applicant was married to late Kedar Dhari after the death of his first wife. The name of the respondent applicant has been mentioned as wife of late Kedar Dhari in the voters' list of PS Kusunda and in the nomination form F, as submitted by late Kedar Dhari and has been duly proved by AW6, an employee of B.C.C.L who had also signed as a witness on the said form F. 8. The court below thus rightly held that the respondent applicant was married to late Kedar Dhari after the death of his first wife, late Mahapatia Devi, and no document was produced to rebut the said evidence by the appellant. It accepted the evidence that the appellant is the daughter begotten from the first marriage which has been supported by the witnesses. 9. Therefore, considering the evidence on record and the findings of the court below, this Court does not find any merit in this appeal; accordingly the same stands dismissed. Consequently, the impugned order is hereby affirmed. Appeal dismissed.