DURGA BAI Vs. VIMLA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (09.05.2012) This revision is directed against the order dated 29.1.2007, passed in M.C.A.No.26-A/2006, by the IX Addl. District Judge, Jabalpur, arising out of order dated 29.4.2006, passed in Succession Case No.96/2005, by the Additional Judge to the Court of I Civil Judge, Class-I, Jabalpur.

(2.) FACTS in brief giving rise to filing of this revision are that the petitioners have approached the Succession Court by making an application for grant of succession certificate to receive the benefits of one late Radheshyam alias Radhelal Barman, stating that the petitioner No.1 was the legally married wife and petitioner No.2 was son of said Radheshyam alias Radhelal, who died on 24.11.2003. Since said Radhelal was working as driver in the M.P. Electricity Board, Bargi, certain service benefits were to be paid on account of death of said Radheshyam. Therefore, a succession certificate was necessary. The said application of petitioners was opposed by the respondents, more particularly, by the respondents No. 1 to 3, on the grounds that the petitioner No.1 was not legally married wife of said Radheshyam alias Radhelal Barman. The legally married wife of said Radheshyam alias Radhelal was respondent No.1. The respondents No. 2 and 3 and originally the respondent No.4 were the son and daughter of said Radheshyam out of the the first marriage and, therefore, the petitioners were not entitled to grant of any succession certificate. After recording of the evidence, the Succession Court came to the conclusion that the first marriage of said Radheshyam was proved with respondent No.1 and since during the first marriage, late Radheshyam could not perform a second marriage with the petitioner No.1, the said lady would not be entitled to any share in the property. However, since the second marriage was also proved, though it was void, the son born out of the said wedlock cannot be said to be not entitled to any claim in the properties of late Radheshyam as even an illegitimate child is also entitled to a share in the property of a Hindu as per Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Thus, the Succession Court passed an order directing that a succession certificate be issued in favour of petitioner No.2 and respondents No. 1, 2, 3 and originally the respondent No.4, and they be given 1/6th share each in the monetary claims except the pension. For the pensionary benefits, since the respondent No.1 alone was entitled to the said amount, the order was passed in this respect.

(3.) THE fact is recorded that on 19.3.2008 none appeared on behalf of petitioners and even today also nobody is present on behalf of the petitioners to prosecute this revision. THE record is perused. Learned counsel for respondents are heard.