- (1.)THIS revision under Section 115 of CPC is directed against the order dated 54-2002 passed by the Second ADJ, Mandala in M. A. No. 7/2001.
(2.)LATE Shyam Sunder Dubey, an employee of the State Government, Health Department, Mandala died on 29-11-96. Petitioners Smt. Prabha Dubey, Vineet, Ku. Sonia and Praveen Kumar presented application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act (hereinafter referred to "the Act" for convenience) before the First Civil Judge Class-I, Mandala seeking succession certificate to collect the dues of late Shyam Sunder Dubey. They have contended that petitioner Prabha Dubey was married with late Shyam Sunder Dubey on 17-11-86 and Vineet, Ku. Soniya, Praveen Kumar Dubey were born of the aforesaid wedlock. Respondents resisted the application aforesaid stating inter alia that petitioner Prabha Dubey is not legally married wife of late Shyam Sunder. Marriage between respondent Santosh Dubey and late Shyam Sunder Dubey was validly performed on 6-2-66 and respondent Jyoti Dubey was born of the aforesaid wedlock. The Civil Judge in Succession Case No. 5/99 vide order dated 16-1-2001 held that petitioner Prabha Dubey and respondent Santosh Dubey lived with late Shyam Sunder as their wives. Therefore, children born from the aforesaid wedlock alongwith petitioner Prabha Dubey and Santosh Dubey arc entitled to collect the dues of late Shyam Sunder. Accordingly, the Civil Judge directed issuance of succession certificate in favour of the petitioners as well as respondents in equal shares. Being aggrieved, respondents Santosh Dubey, Ku. Jyoti Dubey preferred M. A. No. 7/2001 before the Second ADJ, Mandala. The Court below vide impugned order dated 5-1-2002 held that marriage between respondent Santosh Dubey and late Shyam Sunder Dubey since was subsisting, petitioner Prabha Dubey shall not be entitled to seek succession certificate in respect of dues of late Shyam Sunder Dubey. However, the children born from the wedlock of Prabha Dubey and late Shyam Sunder Dubey would be entitled. Accordingly the Court below directed issuance of succession certificate in favour of respondents Santosh Dubey, Jyoti and petitioners Vineet, Sonia and Praveen Kumar. Further respondent Santosh Dubey has been held entitled to seek family pension from the department of late Shyam Sunder Dubey. Being aggrieved, petitioners have preferred the present revision.
(3.)IT is contended that the Court below erred in recognizing respondent Santosh Dubey and Jyoti Dubey to be the widow and daughter of late Shyam Sunder Dubey. Marriage between petitioner Prabha Dubey and late Shyam Sunder Dubey was performed on 17-11-86 and with reference to evidence adduced it ought to have been held that petitioners alone are entitled to seek a succession certificate to collect the dues of late Shyam Sunder Dubey.