Order : This miscellaneous application is directed against the order dated 12.06.2013 passed by the District Judge-I, Godda in Succession Certificate Case No. 9 of 2006 whereby the application for grant of succession certificate in favour of the applicant/appellant was dismissed. 2. The applicant/appellant had filed an application for grant of succession certificate with respect to L.I.C. maturity amount of Rs.1,00,000/bearing policy No. 521004246 deposited in the name of his brother late Sugda Kisku. It is averred that he is the full brother of deceased Sugda Kisku and they are governed by Hindu Mitakshra School of Law. That late Sugda Kisku was an employee of E.C.L. Project, Lalmatia as a regular labour and he died issueless on 30.04.2006. It is stated that late Sugda Kisku was earlier married to one Sunita Murmu @ Sunita Devi, but she deserted him and married another person. That Sugda Kisku did not remarry thereafter and died leaving behind the applicant and the applicant's sons and daughters as the surviving legal heirs hence they are entitled to inherit the movable and immovable assets and liabilities of the deceased and no Will was executed by late Sugda Kisku. 3. Respondent/O.P. No.3 Sumitra Murmu filed her written statement claiming that she was wife of deceased Sugda Kisku and was entitled to the grant of succession certificate. It transpires from the record that after filing of the written statement, she did not take any step nor participated in the proceedings in the court below. 4. The respondent/O.P. No.2, Pakloo Hansda, filed her written statement claiming that she was the wife of late Sugda Kisku. That the applicant had kept her in the dark and filed the succession case for grant of succession certificate with respect to the debts and liabilities of the deceased Sugda Kisku and when she learnt about it, she filed the petition for impleadment in the case which was dismissed whereafter she preferred Writ Petition No.4051 of 2010 before the High Court and on the direction of the High Court she was impleaded as a party. The respondent O.P. has asserted that Sugda Kisku was murdered on 30.04.2006 and as the legally wedded wife she was the sole surviving legal heir and she came in possession of the movable and immovable property of late Sugda Kisku. It is stated that the appellant/applicant is not entitled to grant of succession certificate. The respondent O.P. has asserted that Sugda Kisku was murdered on 30.04.2006 and as the legally wedded wife she was the sole surviving legal heir and she came in possession of the movable and immovable property of late Sugda Kisku. It is stated that the appellant/applicant is not entitled to grant of succession certificate. O.P. No.2 pleaded that Sumitra Devi was not a Santhal (tribal) and she was not married to Sugda Kisku rather she was his mistress and she fled away from the house of Sugda Kisku. That due to the love affair Sugda Kisku had named her as nominee in the L.I.C. but she is not a legal heir as she was never married to late Sugda Kisku. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, the court below framed four issues and held that respondent/O.P. No.2 Pakloo Hasda is the legally wedded wife of deceased Sugda Kisku. That the parties were hinduised tribals and were governed by Mitakshra Law. The court below held that respondent/O.P. No.2 is Class-I surviving heir of the deceased and entitled to grant of succession certificate with respect to the amount of Rs.1,00,000/(one lakh rupees) lying with the L.I.C. in the name of her husband late Sugda Kisku. Consequent thereto the application of the appellant/applicant was dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned order interalia on the ground that the court below has committed error in disbelieving the genealogical table filed by the applicant marked as Exhibit-9 by giving a finding that no date was mentioned in the genealogical table below the signature of the Circle Officer. It is argued by the learned counsel that just because the date was not mentioned, the genuinity of the genealogical table could not be doubted or discarded since O.P. No.2 failed to bring the evidence on record regarding solemnisation of marriage of respondent O.P. No.2 with deceased Sugda Kisku. In the absence of such evidence the court below should have held that she was not legally wedded wife hence she could not come under the category of Class-I heir of deceased Sugda Kisku. That no cogent explanation has been brought forth by respondent/O.P. No.2, as to why in L.I.C. paper name of Sumitra Devi has been mentioned as nominee and this fact was not appreciated by the court below. That no cogent explanation has been brought forth by respondent/O.P. No.2, as to why in L.I.C. paper name of Sumitra Devi has been mentioned as nominee and this fact was not appreciated by the court below. That Sumitra Devi was the legally wedded wife and she left the house of Sugda Kisku and married another person. That since Sugda Kisku died issueless the appellant/applicant being the brother was the sole surviving legal heir hence he was entitled to inherit the movable and immovable property of late Sugda Kisku. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has supported the impugned order. It is contended that the court below has appreciated the documentary and oral evidence adduced by the parties and rightly disbelieved the genealogical table produced by the appellant/applicant as it did not bear the date of issuance of the said table as would be evident from Exhibit9 that it was issued on 08.03.2013, whereas respondent No.2 had produced the genealogical table which has been marked as Exhibit-B dated 31.05.2000 bearing the date and signature of the Circle Officer. The fact that respondent No.2 is the legally wedded wife of Sugda Kisku is corroborated by the voter identity card Exhibit-A and certified copy of voter list Exhibit-C. On the above grounds it is argued that present appeal is fit to be dismissed. 8. Heard. Perused the materials on record and the impugned order. It is evident that respondent/O.P. No.3 had filed her written statement claiming that she was the wife of deceased Sugda Kisku but she did not participate in the proceeding nor led any evidence to rebut the allegation of respondent/O.P. No.2, that respondent/O.P. No.3 was a mistress of late Sugda Kisku and she had left the house of Sugda Kisku and solemnised marriage with another person. The court below has taken note of the fact that the genealogical table Exhibit-B produced by the respondent/O.P. No.2 is of the year 2000 bearing the date and signature of the Circle Officer whereas the genealogical table Exhibit-9, produced by the applicant/appellant, does not bear the date below the signature of the Circle Officer. That it was issued in 2013 during the pendency of the proceeding whereas Exhibit-B was of the year 2000. That it was issued in 2013 during the pendency of the proceeding whereas Exhibit-B was of the year 2000. The court below appreciated the fact that in the voter identity card i.e. Exhibit-A issued by the Election Commission of India, the name of respondent No.2 is mentioned as wife of late Sugda Kisku which is corroborated by the certified copy of the voter list Exhibit-C wherein also respondent No.2 name figures as wife of late Sugda Kisku. The document issued by the Eastern Coal Field Ltd. dated 22.03.2007 is in response to the application filed by respondent/O.P. No.2 for payment of the legal dues and the employment in place of her husband, late Sugda Kisku. The court below has considered and discussed the totality of circumstances and evidence adduced by the parties and has rightly held that O.P. No.2 was the legally wedded wife of Sugda Kisku, hence she being a Class-I heir, as the surviving widow of late Sugda Kisku whereas the appellant/applicant was a Class-II heir, therefore the court below has granted the succession certificate with respect to the amount mentioned in the L.I.C. policy and other emoluments standing in the name of deceased late Sugda Kisku in favour of respondent/O.P. No.2, while dismissing the application of appellant/applicant. Therefore, in view of the evidence on record, this court is of the considered opinion that no illegality or impropriety has been committed by the court below, consequently the impugned order does not merit any interference. 9. In the result, this miscellaneous appeal stands dismissed.