ORDER : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND 1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 11.06.2007 passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Jamshedpur in Succession Certificate Case No.28 of 2006, whereby the learned Court below has refused to grant the succession certificate to the appellant/ applicant in regard to the amount of Rs.2,50,000/-in fixed deposit with the Union Bank of India jointly in the name of the appellant and her deceased husband. 2. The brief facts leading to this Miscellaneous Appeal are that the appellant P. Chanda Rao had filed the application for grant of Succession Certificate under the provision of Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act with these averments that her husband died on 20.06.2004 and after his death he left behind him his wife, two daughters and one son, all three children were minor at that time and all were residing with the applicant/ appellant. Besides leaving his wife and the minor children, the deceased had also left his father Mr. P. Ramchandra Rao, who was alive at that time. The husband of the appellant and the appellant herself had initially deposited Rs.50,000/-each for five year in fixed deposit and that account was either or survivor. The deceased had not executed any will in regard to the amount deposited in fixed deposit and the prayer was sought to issue the succession certificate in regard to the matured amount, which was Rs.2,50,000/-. The details of the same is given at the foot of the application in the schedule. All the requisite formalities were completed before the learned lower Court. 3. On behalf of the appellant in oral evidence examined A.W.-1, P. Chanda Rao herself and A.W.-2, Bhuneshwar Rao. In documentary evidence adduced the fixed deposit certificate and death certificate of P. Ratna Rao @ John. No evidence oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the respondent/ opposite party. 4. The learned Trial Court after hearing the rival submissions of both parties, passed the impugned judgment on 11.06.2007 and dismissed the application filed for issuance of succession certificate. 5. Aggrieved from the impugned judgment, this Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed on behalf of the appellant on the ground that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is bad in the eyes of law. 5. Aggrieved from the impugned judgment, this Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed on behalf of the appellant on the ground that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is bad in the eyes of law. The learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record and on the basis of erroneous findings refused the prayer for issuance of Succession Certificate. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record. 7. To decide the legality and propriety of impugned order the evidence adduced by the parties is reproduced here under: 7.1 A.W.-1, P. Chanda Rao, in her examination-in-chief, says that her husband died on 20.06.2004 and after his death he had left behind his wife, two daughters and one son, all the children were minor at that time. Her mother-in-law had died and father-in-law was alive. In cross-examination, this witness stated that her husband was murdered. In that case, she was also accused. She was acquitted in that case. She denied the suggestion that the Hon’ble High Court again remanded the case for re-trial to the learned Court below. 7.2 P.W.-2, Bhuneshwar Prasad, in his examination-in-chief, says that P. Chanda Rao and her husband P. Ratna Rao had joint fixed account, in which, the amount of Rs.2,50,000/-is deposited. There were five policies of Rs.50,000/-each fixed deposit, the receipt number were 505903020020015 (15 to 19). This said amount was initially deposited on 22.09.1999. This policy was ‘either or survivor’. Deposit form is in signature of Clerk Arvind Kumar and is in his handwriting. He identifies the same and marked as Exhibit-1. In cross-examination, this witness says that this Form was not filled in his presence. In this account, no one was nominee. 8. From the very perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Court below, it is found that the Succession Certificate was refused to grant in favour of the applicant/appellant on the ground that she was accused in murder case of her husband. The only issue, which is involved for disposal of this appeal is: “Whether the appellant is debarred from the succession certificate in regard to the amount deposited in FDR Account No505903020020015 (15 to 19) on the ground of being accused in murder case of her husband?”. 9. The only issue, which is involved for disposal of this appeal is: “Whether the appellant is debarred from the succession certificate in regard to the amount deposited in FDR Account No505903020020015 (15 to 19) on the ground of being accused in murder case of her husband?”. 9. From the evidence on record oral as well as documentary, this fact is admitted that five policies of Rs.50,000/-each were deposited by the applicant/ appellant and her husband jointly in fixed deposit. This fact is also proved by the P.W.-2, Bhuneshwar Prasad, who has also proved the initial form, which was filled by Clerk Arvind Kumar. The said amount, which was deposited in the year 1999 became Rs.2,50,000/-. To that effect fixed deposit certificate is on record, which is Exhibit-1. The death certificate of P. Ratna Rao is Exhibit-2, in which, date of death is shown 20.06.2004. 10. After his death, P. Ratna Rao had left his wife, two daughters and one son, all children were minor at the time of moving the succession certificate application. The father-in-law was also impleaded as party and participated in the evidence and proceeding, which was conducted before the learned Court below. But the minor children were not impleaded as party through her natural guardian or next friend. 11. From perusal of judgment passed in murder case, which is also on record, it is found that in Sessions Trial No.17 of 2005 and Sessions Trial No. 96 of 2005 (State Vs. Shiv Narayan Yadav and seven others) arising out of G.R. Case No. 968 of 2004, Sitaramendra P.S. Case No.41 of 2004, the learned trial Court had acquitted four accused persons, namely, Shiv Narayan Yadav, P. Chanda Rao, Mohan Gupta and Raju Das @ Raju Podwal. 12. Though the suggestion was given to the A.W.-1, P. Chanda Rao during the cross-examination that the said judgment of acquittal dated 22.12.2005 was assailed before the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble High Court has also remanded the same to the learned trial Court but there is nothing on record to this effect in the lower Court record. 13. Admittedly, the appellant/ applicant and her deceased husband on whose death, she claimed for succession certificate for the amount jointly deposited by herself and her husband are Hindu. Therefore, both are governed with Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 reads as under: “25. Murderer disqualified. 13. Admittedly, the appellant/ applicant and her deceased husband on whose death, she claimed for succession certificate for the amount jointly deposited by herself and her husband are Hindu. Therefore, both are governed with Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 reads as under: “25. Murderer disqualified. ?A person who commits murder or abets the commission of murder shall be disqualified from inheriting the property of the person murdered, or any other property in furtherance of the succession to which he or she committed or abetted the commission of the murder.” 13.1 From the bare perusal of Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, it is evident that the murderer is disqualified to succeed the deceased, whose murder is caused by him or her. 13.2 Herein, it is pertinent to mention that the applicant was one of the accused among other accused in Sessions Trial No.17 of 2005 arising out of G.R. Case No.968 of 2004 (Sitaramendra P.S. Case No.41 of 2004) and in the same Sessions Trial case, the applicant along with other co-accused were acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Civil Court, Jamshedpur. There is nothing on record that against the said judgment of acquittal of the applicant in Sessions Trial No.17 of 2005 any Acquittal Appeal was preferred or the same is pending or decided. The only suggestion was given to the A.W.-1, P. Chanda Rao that against the judgment of acquittal, the acquittal appeal was preferred, in which, the Hon’ble High Court remanded the same for re-trial to the learned trial Court concerned. This suggestion has been denied by the A.W.-1, P. Chanda Rao, but to this effect nothing has been adduced on behalf of the respondent/ opposite party. Though, P. Ramchandra Rao, who is the father-in-law of the applicant was also shown one of the legal heirs of deceased and on behalf of the P. Ramchandra Rao, the father-in-law, the cross-examination was done by his learned counsel from A.W.-1, P. Chanda Rao. Neither P. Ramchandra Rao did produce himself as a witness before the Court nor adduced any evidence to this effect that the judgment of acquittal of the applicant P. Chanda Rao was ever assailed before the appellate Court. Neither P. Ramchandra Rao did produce himself as a witness before the Court nor adduced any evidence to this effect that the judgment of acquittal of the applicant P. Chanda Rao was ever assailed before the appellate Court. In view of the acquittal of the appellant/ applicant in Sessions Trial No.17 of 2005, she cannot be said to be disqualified under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 13.3 Herein, it is pertinent to mention that the initial amount, which was deposited not only by the deceased husband, rather it was deposited by both the appellant and her husband as well. The fixed deposit account was ‘either or survivor’. Copy of five policies of Rs.50,000/-each in joint name of applicant and her husband are on record. 13.4 The learned Court below has also refused to grant the succession certificate to the applicant has concealed the fact of being accused in commission of the murder of her husband. Certainly, this fact is not disclosed by the applicant in the succession application. The reason of the same is that the succession certificate was filed by the applicant on 20.04.2006 and the applicant had been acquitted from the charge of alleged murder in Sessions Trial No.17 of 2005 vide judgment dated 22.12.2005. In view of the acquittal of the applicant prior to filing the succession application, this finding of the learned Court below is found perverse that she has concealed the fact of being accused in commission of the murder of her husband. 14. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the Court below, whereby the appellant was refused to issue the succession certificate bears infirmity and the same needs interference and this Miscellaneous Appeal deserves to be allowed. 15. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned court below is hereby set aside and this Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. In consequence thereof, the succession certificate application of the applicant/ appellant stood allowed. 16. Let the succession certificate be issued by the learned Court below in favour of the appellant/ applicant adopting the mode of Section 379 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 in regard to the amount of Rs.2,50,000/-deposited in FDR Account No. 505903020020015 (15 to 19). 17. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned Court concerned through ‘FAX’