CHITRAKALA BEWA ALIAS SAMAL Vs. JAMBUBATI BEWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Birakishore Samal died on January 17, 1975. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 applied for the grant of a succession certificate in respect of the provident fund, gratuity, family pension, etc., as well as a sum of Rs. 4,000 covered by two insurance policies. Respondent No. 1 claimed to be the married wife of the deceased and respondent No 2 his adopted son. The appellant was arrayed as opposite party No. 3 in the misc. case as the mistress of the deceased. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 claimed that they were entitled to the dues admissible to the deceased under the contributory provident fund, family pension as well as the insurance policies left by the deceased. They also claimed that they were entitled to the gratuity payable to the deceased as he was an employee of the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation. According to them, the appellant was not the legally married wife of Birakishore but was his mistress and taking advantage of this, was making attempts to get the dues of the deceased Birakishore. The State Transport Corporation and the Life Insurance Corporation did not contest. The only contestant was the appellant. According to her, she married deceased Birakishore at Puri when respondent No. 1 was aged about ten to twelve years, but subsequently the deceased married respondent No. 1 only to avoid social difficulties. Despite the marriage of respondent No. 1 with the deceased, the appellant and the deceased continued to live as husband and wife and respondent No. 1 never led her marital life with the deceased. On these grounds the appellant claimed that she was entitled to the dues payable to deceased Birakishore.

(2.) The trial court has held that the appellant is not the married wife of the deceased. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 being the wife and son of the deceased respectively, are his legal heirs and, as such, they are entitled to all the moneys due to the deceased.

(3.) The appellant admits that respondent No. 1 was the married wife of the deceased. It is also not seriously disputed that respondent No. 2 is the son of the deceased. Accordingly, both of them are the successors and legal heirs of the deceased. The only question was whether the appellant was the married wife of the deceased as claimed by her. She admits that she had married one Nitei Sahu, before her marriage with the deceased Birakishore. There is no evidence on record to show if that marriage was at any time dissolved. A feeble attempt has been made by the only statement of the appellant herself that, as she lived with Birakishore her, husband, Nitei Sahu, observed the funerals announcing her to be dead. This evidence cannot establish dissolution of the marriage of the appellant with Nitei Sahu. There is no evidence on record to show that Nitei Sahu is no longer alive. According to the appellant, her marriage with Birakishore took place in the Puri temple. Evidence has been led to show that an application was made before the Mukti Mandap Sabha, some money was deposited and a receipt was granted and also entries were made in a register about their marriage. Neither the relevant register has been produced nor anybody has been examined to prove the marriage at Puri. The little evidence that has been adduced relating to the marriage function is discrepant and the trial court has rightly held that no reliance can be placed on such evidence. The statement of the appellant in court compared with the pleadings in her written statement is so prevaricating and inconsistent that no reliance can be placed on such testimony to conclude that there was a marriage between the appellant and the deceased Birakishore. The trial court has rightly held that the evidence in this respect cannot be believed.