PADMAVATI MISHRA Vs. SUMITRA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against an order dated 1 -9 -1995 whereby the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, rejected the succession Case No. 28 of 1988 by the appellant, seeking succession certificate for the appellant -applicant on the death of her step son Lok Nath Mishra, who was an employee of the Bihar Electricity Board. This case was contested by the daughter of the deceased. On the evidence addured by the parties, the Court come to the conclusion that Sumitra Devi was the daughter of the deceased and she was also the nominee of the deceased in the Group Insurance Scheme and other funds of the deceased lying with the Electricity Board. Though it was the contention of the appellant -applicant that the deceased died unmarried, the lower Court went deep into the evidence adduced by the parties and held on the basis of documentary and oral evidence that Sumitra Devi was the daughter of the deceased and Shanti Devi was his wife, who died already before the decision of the succession case. It was further held the appellant -applicant was the step -mother of the deceased. On this finding, the lower Court dismissed the application of the appellant for grant of succession certificate.

(2.) BEFORE me it was submitted that the applicant was entitled to receive the succession certificate in spite of the fact that she was -step mother. However, Sec. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act has laid down that the natural heirs in Clause 1 of the schedule are son, daughter, wife and mother. The point is whether the step -mother is also a mother, as contemplated under the aforesaid Section of the Act. Step mother, in my considered opinion, is neither mother nor she is an heir of the deceased male dying intehartate as referred to in the provisions of the Act. It is only the natural mother who had been described as mother as one of the Clause 1 heirs of the male dying intestate under Sec. 8 of the aforementioned Act. So, I do not think that the appellant was entitled to receive any succession certificate. Besides the above, the daughter and widow of the deceased Shanti Devi were mentioned as nominees in various papers of the deceased lying with the Electricity Board. On the basis of the evidence adduced by both the parties, the lower Court came to a definite finding that the deceased was married and he had left behind his daughter. In that view of the matter also, I do not think that the appellant was entitled to receive succession certificate.

(3.) IN the result, this appeal is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs of this appeal.