SAVITRI DEVI Vs. MANORAMA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 by the first wife against the order granting succession certificate in favour of the second wife.

(2.) Undisputed facts of the case are that appellant Savitri Devi was legally wedded wife of Bhagwan Singh Rai. This marriage had taken place in June, 1963. He remarried respondent No. 1 Manorama Bai on 6-11-1976. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are his children through Manorama Bai. He was employed in Railways as A.C.T. I. He died on 21-1-1993. The following amounts are payable to his heirs : @@114.htm@@ On his death Manorama Bai and her three children applied for succession certificate. That was registered as Case No. 61/93. Savitri Devi also applied for succession certificate at Tikamgarh. Her application was transferred to Jabalpur and it was registered as Case No. 1/96 .These two cases were consolidated. After recording the evidence these cases were disposed of by the common order. It was held that there had been divorce according to the caste custom between Savitri Devi and Bhagwan Singh Rai before he married Manorama Bai. Therefore, the succession certificate was granted in favour of Manorama Bai and her three children. The claim of Savitri Devi was rejected.

(3.) In this appeal the main question is whether there was divorce between Savitri Devi and Bhagwan Singh Rai according to caste custom. After hearing the learned counsel for both the sides and scrutinising the documentary and oral evidence on record we are of the opinion that the finding of the Court below regarding the proof of customary divorce is perverse. It is admitted that Savitri Devi was legally wedded wife of Bhagwan Singh Rai. There is a strong presumption of continuity of the marriage. This is by virtue of illustration (d) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act. Once a state of thing is shown to exist there is a presumption of its continuance. The Supreme Court has held in Ambika Prasad v. Ram Ekbal Rai, AIR 1966 SC 605 that the things once proved to have existed in a particular state are to be understood as persisting in continuing in that State, until the contrary is established by evidence either direct and circumstantial.