RABINARAYAN SARANGI Vs. TARULATA SARANGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act 1925 (hereinafter called as "the Act") challenging an order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar in Testamentary Case No. 10 of 2008, in the matter of an application under Section 372 of the Act filed by the respondent for grant of Succession Certificate for receiving dues of deceased Sobhamani Sadangi lying in deposit in the General Provident Fund, towards Gratuity and under General Insurance Scheme on account of her service as Ex-Gang Mulia in the Office of Executive Engineer (R&B) Division-IV, Bhubaneswar and also for receiving the amount under the TDR deposit in Indian Bank, Kharavela Nagar, Bhubaneswar as indicated in the petition.

(2.) Facts necessary for the purpose of this appeal are as under :-

(3.) The opposite party entering appearance challenged the status of the petitioner as claimed by her to be the daughter of Kailash and Sobhamani and so also factum of her stay with them from the time of her birth since 1966. It is specifically stated that the petitioner is the daughter of Padmanav Sadangi, the younger brother of Kailash and she was born and brought up at Jadipal having such relationship, she prosecuted her studies by staying with Kailash. It is stated that Kailash died issue less. The date of birth of the petitioner as stated in the petition to be in the year 1966 is denied and instead, it is stated that her actual death of birth is 30-10-1965. A stand has also been taken that other legal heirs of Kailash and Sobhamani though are there, have not been made parties. The opposite party claimed his right of entitlement to receive the Succession Certificate for the purpose as indicated in the petition, in view of the last Will of Sobhamani said to have been duly executed on 24-5-2001. This opposite party while denying her status as the nephew of the deceased asserted to be the grand son i.e. nephew's son of the deceased. He also denied to have taken signature of the petitioner on any blank and other papers as alleged in the petition. It is further stated that a sum of Rs. 22,000/- was disbursed in favour of the petitioner. It is asserted that the petitioner is not entitled to the Succession Certificate as prayed for by her. The opposite party was very much loved by deceased Sobhamani in view of his sincere service rendered towards her and the care that he was taking during her old age. So, out of love and affection and being satisfied with the service on 25-5-2001 Sobhamani executed the Will bequeathing all her service benefits in favour of the opposite party. He had also lit the funeral pyre of Sobhamani and had performed funeral rights and the rituals as that of her son to the knowledge of the petitioner and all others.