Jharkhand High Court
Niyoti Roy vs Mayarani Roy on 25 February, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No. 288 of 2006
-----
1. Niyoti Roy, W/o Late Indrajit Roy
2. Sujit Roy @ Sujit Kr. Roy, S/o Late Indrajit Roy, Both R/o Quarter No. 52/2, S.H.O, Area, ear Indian Oil, Namkum, Ranchi, P.O & P.S.- Namkum, Dist.-Ranchi
3. Smt. Shikha Dutta, D/o Late Indrajit Roy, W/o Shri Nimai Dutta, R/o Hindpiri, 1st Street, P.O & P.S.-Hindpiri, Dist.-Ranchi ... .... Appellants Versus
1. Mayarani Roy, W/o Late Indrajit Roy, R/o Janta Flat, Harmu Housing Colony, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.-Argora, Dist.-Ranchi
2. Subhash Roy
3. Rajesh Roy, both S/o Late Indrajit Roy, R/o Harmu Housing Colony, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.-Argora, Dist.-Ranchi
4. Menka Roy, D/o Late Indrajit Roy, W/o Sri Kalu Roy, R/o Tetri Basti, Namkum, P.O & P.S.-Namkum, Dist.-Ranchi ... .... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
-----
For the Appellants : M/s A.K. Das & Swati Shalini, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Ajit Kr. Sinha, Advocate
-----
Oral Order 29 / Dated: 25.02.2025
1. This appeal is under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act against the judgment dated 01.07.2006 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi in Misc. Case No. 285 of 1999, whereby and whereunder, the application under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act for revocation of the Succession Certificate dated 01.02.1999 issued in Succession Case No. 176 of 1997 has been dismissed.
2. Appellant no. 1 claims to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased Indrajit Roy, who died on 22.03.1997 and was the employee in RINPAS, Kanke as Jamadar. Appellant nos. 2 and 3 are the married son and daughter of the deceased.
3. It is the case of the appellants that the Succession Certificate was obtained by respondent no. 1 by suppressing the factum of marriage of Indrajit Roy with appellant no. 1 in Succession Case No. 176 of 1997 as they were also not made a party. Only respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 were impleaded as O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 in the said case. Once having come to know about issuance of the succession certificate, revocation case was filed which was dismissed. Hence this appeal
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellants that witnesses examined on behalf of the appellants, have consistently proved the marriage of appellant no. 1 with Late Indrajit Roy. Further, altogether Ext. 1 to 9 were adduced into evidence which established the relationship of the appellants with the deceased. It is argued that all these evidences were brushed aside and have not been considered by the learned Court below. Among the witnesses, P.W. 3 was the wife of the elder brother of the appellant no. 1.
5. Learned Tribunal has committed an error of record in para-7 in page-5 of the judgment that Ext. 3 to 9 have been marked with objection. It is further argued that these are the public documents issued by the competent authority as they were the educational certificates. Therefore, a formal proof of the documents was not required.
7. It is argued by learned counsel for the respondents that as many as ten witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondents before the court below. D.W. 2-Kashinath Thakur and D.W.8-Pawan Kumar have testified that Niyoti Roy was not married to the deceased Indrajit Roy and appellant nos. 2 and 3 were not his children.
8. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and materials on record, the manner in which the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellants before the court below has been brushed aside, appears to be somewhat inexplicable and without any rational justification.
29. Ext. 3 is the board certificate (original) issued in the name of Sujit Kumar Roy S/o of Indrajit Roy by Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, which is in the nature of public documents and has been proved and marked as exhibit without any objection by the respondents. Despite this, it is surprising that the Court did not accept it, merely on the ground that the signatures on the certificate was not proved. Similarly, the admit card issued by the Board, in the name of same person and by the same institution duly proved without any objection has not been accepted. Ext-5 and Ext-6 are school leaving certificate and character certificates issued by the school, cannot be said to be public documents, but they are adduced into evidence and marked as exhibits without objection, and therefore there was no reason to have discarded them. This is to be noted that these certificates were of the period during his lifetime. Once a document has been duly proved without objection, the same cannot be refused to be admitted ( see Junul Surin v. Silas Munda, 2008 SCC OnLine Jhar 132) It has been held in Rishipal Singh Solanki v. State of U.P., (2022) 8 SCC 602 :
"33.10. Any document which is in consonance with public documents, such as matriculation certificate, could be accepted by the court or the J.J. Board provided such public document is credible and authentic as per the provisions of the Evidence Act viz. Section 35 and other provisions.
P.C. Purushothama Reddiar v. S. Perumal, (1972) 1 SCC 9 :
Those reports were marked without any objection. Hence it is not open to the respondent now to object to their admissibility see Bhagat Ram v. Khatu Ram [AIR 1929 PC 110 : 116 IC 394]."
In view of the above settled position of law, learned Court below fell in clear error to have refused to consider Ext-3 to 6, despite the same having been proved without objection on the part of the respondents.
310. As far as the relationship is concerned, Section 50 of the Evidence Act is emphatic that when the Court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another, the opinion, expressed by conduct, as to the existence of such relationship, of any person who, as a member of the family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject, is a relevant fact.
11. Apart from the documentary evidence, referred to above, there are oral evidence of close relative of the deceased (PW-3), who has stated that Appellant No.1 was the wife and Appellant no.2 and 3 were the son and daughter of the deceased.
12. This is a dispute between the two sisters, i.e., Mayarani Roy (R-1) and Niyoti Roy (A-1), both claimed to be wife of the deceased. P.W. 3 is the sister-in-law (brother's wife of both these contesting parties) who has deposed that the marriage of appellant no. 1 was solemnized with the deceased Indrajit Roy. She also identified the photographs of Niyoti Roy and the deceased Indrajit Roy which was marked as Ext. X and X/1 for identification where appellant no. 1 is in bridal dress sitting with the deceased.
13. P.W. 2 is another witness who claimed to be the witness of the marriage ceremony but her testimony has also not been accepted by the court below.
14. Documentary and oral evidence cumulatively establish that A-1 was the second wife of Indrajit Roy, R-2 and R-3 and R-4 were his children. D.W. 2 and D.W. 8 who were ranked out sider to the family, could not have been accepted, in exclusion of the documentary and oral evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant. The evidence that Niyoti Roy had married to a Muslim man is also beyond the pleading of the respondents and therefore cannot be accepted.
15. Weight of evidence suggests that Mayarani Roy (R-1) was the first wife, whereas Niyoti Roy (A-1) was the second wife of the deceased. There is no pleading or evidence to show that before the marriage with Niyoti Roy (A-1), first wife Mayarani Roy (R-1) was 4 divorced, therefore it was a void marriage in terms of Section 5 (i) of Hindu Marriage Act,1955. Law has been laid down in Vidhyadhari v. Sukhrana Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 238 that even if a government servant had contracted second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage, children born out of such second marriage would still be legitimate though the second marriage itself would be void.
16. In the present case A-2 and A-3 were the lineal descendants of the deceased Indrajit Roy and in the application filed under Section 372 of the Succession Act,1925 in Succession Case No. 176 of 1997, they were not deliberately impleaded and suppressed their relationship and the succession certificate was obtained behind their back.
17. Under Section 383, a succession certificate granted under Part X may be revoked for any of the following causes, namely :--
(a) that the proceedings to obtain the certificate were defective in substance;
(b) that the certificate was obtained fraudulently by the making of a false suggestion, or by the concealment from the Court of something material to the case;
(c) that the certificate was obtained by means of an untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant thereof, though such allegation was made in ignorance or inadvertently;
(d) that the certificate has become useless and inoperative through circumstances;
(e) that a decree or order made by a competent Court in a suit or other proceeding with respect to effects comprising debts or securities specified in the certificate renders it proper that the certificate should be revoked.
18. There was thus a material and fraudulent concealment of the relationship of the deceased Indrajit Roy with the appellants. As discussed above appellant no.2 and appellant no.3 were the biological son and daughter of the deceased and being class I heir of the deceased. They were necessary party in the case for issuance of succession 5 certificate, and were deliberately not impleaded in the application for issuance of succession certificate for debt and securities of the deceased Indrajit Roy, to deprive them of their legitimate share. In this view of matter the succession certificate granted was fit to be revoked under Section 383 of the succession Act 1925.
19. It has been argued on behalf of the respondents that the terminal dues of the deceased has already been withdrawn by the respondents. This cannot be ground for depriving the legitimate dues to appellant no.2 and appellant no.3, who can bring a separate action impleading the respondents for issuance of succession certificate in their name. Proceedings under Chapter X of the Succession Act are summary in nature. If the Judge cannot decide the right to the certificate without determining questions of law or fact which seem to be too intricate and difficult for determination in a summary proceeding, he may nevertheless grant a certificate to the applicant if he appears to be the person having prima facie the best title thereto. When there are more applicants than one for a certificate, and it appears to the Judge that more than one of such applicants are interested in the estate of the deceased, the Judge may, in deciding to whom the certificate is to be granted, have regard to the extent of interest and the fitness in other respects of the applicants. Section 387 specifically permits the 2nd (sic 1st) respondent to file a subsequent suit. Merely because issues were raised and/or evidence was led, does not mean that the findings given thereunder are final and operate as res judicata. Even in summary proceedings issues can be raised and/or evidence can be led. The proceedings remain summary even though the court may, in its discretion, permit leading of evidence and raising of issues. So in a subsequent suit the crucial issues must be decided afresh untrammelled or uninfluenced by any finding made in the proceedings for grant of succession certificate (see Joginder Pal v. Indian Red Cross Society, (2000) 8 SCC 143).
Impugned order granting succession certificate is accordingly 6 set aside, and the succession certificate issued in favour of the respondents stands revoked.
Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed.
Pending, I.A. if any, stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Satendra 7