Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J. - (1.) The applicants-appellants have preferred this civil misc. appeal under section 384 of the Indian Succession Act (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') against the order dated 11.5.2000 passed by the District Judge, Swaimadhopur in Civil Misc. Case No. 18/98 whereby the learned Trial Court has refused to grant succession certificate in favour of the appellants.
(2.) The brief relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that appellants alongwith respondents No. 2 to 5 filed an application under section 372 of the Act before Court below on 13.1.1998 with the averment that appellant-Smt. Dhola Devi is the legally married (sic. wife?) of deceased Shri Ram Sahay who has died on 1.6.1994 and appellants Nos. 2 and 3 were born out of wedlock of appellant-Smt. Dhola Devi and deceased Ram Sahay whereas present respondents are son and daughters of deceased-Ram Sahay, who were born from the first wife of deceased Ram Sahay, Smt. Shand Devi. It was prayed in the application that the appellants and the respondents are entitled to receive the estate left by deceased-Ram Sahay and, therefore, succession certificate may be issued regarding the estate mentioned in the application. Respondent No. 1 Smt. Archana Devi, who is admittedly daughter of deceased-Ram Sahay, born from his first wife Smt. Shanti Devi, filed reply to the application and denied that appellant-Smt. Dhola Devi is a legally married wife of Shri Ram Sahay. It was also averred that appellant No. 2-Sona and appellant No. 3-appellant Shekhar ware the illegitimate children of deceased Shri Ram Sahay. Both the parties produced evidence and the learned Court below after considering the evidence available on record came to a conclusion that conclusion that appellant-Smt. Dhola Devi has failed to prove that she is a legally married wife of deceased Shri Ram Saya. On that basis the learned Court below also concluded that the appellants cannot be said to be successor and legal representatives of deceased-Shri Rain Sahay and, therefore, they are not entitled to get succession certificate in regard to the estate left by the deceased. It was ordered that succession certificate may be issued in favour of the respondents. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellants are before this Court by way of this civil misc. appeal.
(3.) Assailing the impugned order, by which the learned Court below refused to grant succession certificate in favour of the appellants. learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that there is ample evidence on record indicating that after death of first wife-Smt. Shand Devi, 'Nata' marriage was performed between appellant-Smt. Shansi Devi (sic. Dhola Devi) and deceased-Shri Ram Sahay and they lived together for a substantial and considerable time with the status of husband and wife till the death of Shri Rain Sahay and from their wedlock appellants No. 2 and 3 were born. It was further submitted that if it is held that the marriage between appellant-Smt. Dhola Devi and deceased-Shri Ram Sahay was not valid even then there being no dispute regarding the fact that appellants No. 2 and 3 were born out of wedlock of appellant- Smt. Dhola Devi and deceased-Shri Ram Sahay they being successor and legal representatives of deceased-Shri Ram Sahay under section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, are entitled to be granted succession certificate regarding to the estate left by the deceased. It was contended that the learned Court below without considering the provisions of section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act refused to grant succession certificate to appellants No. 2 and 3 also.;