BINOD SAHU Vs. CHANDRAMA SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act"), inter alia, challenging the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Angul under Section 372 of the Act in Succession Misc. Case No. 14 of 1998.

(2.) Bereft of all unnecessary details, the short facts which are necessary for effectual adjudication of the inter se disputes are as follows : The widow and two daughters of late Kumar Sahu filed a petition under Section 372 of the Act praying for issuance of a Secession Certificates. It was specifically averred in the petition that after death of Kumar Sahu, they were the only persons who were entitled to succeed to the properties left behind as well as the money left by late Kumar Sahu in the State Bank of India. In response to the public notice, the two appellants, filed a petition under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC praying to implead them as parties. It was asserted that they were the sons of late Kumar Sahu through his second wife. The said petition was allowed and they were impleaded as opp. parties. The claim of the appellants was strongly repudiated by the widow and two daughters on the ground that under the provisions of the Hindu Law, second marriage during the life time of the first wife was void. It was emphatically submitted that neither the name of the second wife nor her whereabouts were disclosed by the appellants. According to them both the appellants were imposters and not the sons of late Kumar Sahu. To substantiate their case, Chandrama Sahu, widow, examined herself as P.W. 1 and exhibited four documents. At the other hand, the present appellant No. 1 examined himself as O.P.W. 1 and exhibited two documents. It is apt to mention here that after being impleaded as opp. parties, the appellants chose not to file any objection or written statement.

(3.) The trial Court after vivid discussion of the evidence both, oral and documentary, came to a categorical finding that the legal heir certificate Ext. 2 granted by the Tahasildar in favour of the petitioners-respondents, was correct and genuine. The trial Court rejected the certificate Ext-A issued in favour of the appellants on the ground that the same was issued later and also contradicted Ext. 2 which was issued earlier. The submissions advanced on behalf of the opp. parties that P.W. 1 in her cross-examination admitted that the opp. parties were born through the second wife of Kumar Sahu, was disbelieved in view of the statement made by her in her deposition i.e. I cannot say if Binod Sahu and Jitendra Sahu are his sons." Be that as it may, on a cumulative assessment of the documents and the oral evidence, the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Angul declared the petitioners (respondents) as the legal heirs and successors of late Kumar Sahu and held that they were entitled to the property left by deceased Kumar Sahu. The trial Court further directed for issuance of succession certificate jointly in the names of all the respondents to collect deposits and the interest accrued thereon from the State Bank of India. Said order, as stated above, is impugned in this appeal.