HAR PRASAD Vs. RAJRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. The following substantial questions of law were formulated by order dated 14.3.1991 at the time of admission of this appeal -

(2.) THE facts relevant for the decision of the questions referred above are that Ramnath was Bhumiswami of Khasra Nos. 165, 166, 188, 144, 145, 149, 150, 163, 300, 304, 313, 314, 336, 338, 341, 353, 373, 378, 507, 522 and 536 (total 21) area 15.407 hectares of village Bilha, Tahsil Gunor, district Panna. Plaintiff Halkai was his brother. He filed the civil suit for possession of these lands. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The judgment and decree of the trial Court have been set aside in first appeal. The claim of the plaintiff was that he is the nearest heir of Ramnath. On the other hand, defendant No. 1 Rajrani claimed that she is the widow of Ramnath. Her case was that Ramnath had married her after the death of his first wife. It was also pleaded that defendant No. 2 Smt. Chandrakumari alias Chanda Bai is daughter of Rajrani through Ramnath. The first appellate Court has held after appreciation of the documentary and oral evidence on record that Rajrani was wife of Ramnath and defendant No. 2 Smt. Chandrakumari alias Chanda Bai is daughter of Ramnath through Rajrani. This finding of fact is based on proper appreciation of evidence. There is no legal infirmity in the finding. Rajrani lived for several years with Ramnath as his wife and Chanda Bai was born to her through Ramnath. It was suggested by plaintiff Halkai that Rajrani is actually wife of Gokul and defendant No. 2 Chandrakumari alias Chanda Bai is daughter of Gokul. That evidence has not been believed. Gokul is living in the village. He has not been examined as a witness by the plaintiff to rebut the evidence of Rajrani (DW -1).

(3.) SECTION 387 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 provides that no decision under this Part upon any question of right between any parties shall be held to bar the trial of the same question in suit or in any other proceeding between the same parties, and nothing in this Part shall be construed to affect the liability of any person who may receive the whole or any part of any debt or security, or any interest or dividend on any security, to account therefor to the person lawfully entitled thereto. It is well settled that the proceedings for grant of succession certificate are summary proceedings. In view of Section 387 any decision in such proceeding in respect of the rights do not preclude the parties to litigate the same in a regular suit. A decision in a proceeding for the grant of succession certificate is not conclusive and the same question may be tried in any other suit or proceeding between the same parties. A finding as to relationship in proceedings for the grant of certificate is not a bar to trial of the same question between the same parties. It has been held by the High Court of Kerala in V.K. Kamalam Vs. Panchali Amma (AIR 1988 Ker 265) that a finding in the proceedings for the grant of succession certificate that the respondent is the wife of testator cannot operate as res -judicata in a subsequent litigation. In the succession case the Court has only to ascertain as to who is entitled to the certificate. The Court in a succession case is not competent to grant the relief which can be claimed by the parties in a regular civil suit. In Anjanalah Vs. Nagappa (AIR 1967 AP 61) it has been held that any decision given in a succession case is not res -judicata. If a person has any right, the grant of a certificate or any decision given in those proceedings would not be a bar to him to establish his right. The same view has been taken in Nevilee Vs. Dolly Mehta (AIR 1976 Mad 138).