RASHMI BHARTI ALIAS PINKI Vs. PANKAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), has been preferred against an order dated 5.12.2007 passed in Succession Case No. 76 of 2005, whereby, while allowing Succession Case, Sri Ram Shreshtha Roy, learned 1 st Additional District Judge, Patna, has directed for issuance of Succession Certificate in favour of the applicant / respondent no. 1 in accordance with provisions contained in Section 377 of the Act

(2.) Short fact of the case is that on 5.7.2005, respondent no. 1 filed an application for grant of succession certificate in the court of District Judge, Patna, which was registered as Succession Case No. 76 of 2005 in his favour in respect of estate of Late Sanjeev Kumar, described in Schedule I of the petition i.e. insurance policy bearing certificate no. 01477084/102030- 187485 standing in the name of Late Sanjeev Kumar for an amount of Rs. 1,00000/- procured from National Insurance Co. Ltd. under Golden Trust Financial Service, Branch - Buddha Marg, Patna. The respondent no. 1/ applicant, had arrayed estate of Late Sanjeev Kumar, as opposite party no. 1, widow of Late Sanjeev Kumar as opposite party no. 2 (who is appellant in this appeal), father and mother of applicant/ Respondent No. 1 as opposite party no. 3 & 4. Golden Trust Financial Service & National Insurance Co. Ltd. were arrayed as opposite party no. 5 & 6. It was disclosed by the applicant / Respondent No. 1 before the court below that his own brother deceased Sanjeev Kumar had taken an insurance policy of Rs. 1,00000/- on 8.7.2002. Marriage of Sanjeev Kumar was solemnized with appellant (Smt. Rashmi Bharti) on 24.6.2002, whereas, while taking insurance policy on 8.7. 2002 i.e. after the marriage of Sanjeev Kumar with appellant (Rashmi Bharti), the applicants (Respondent No. 1) name was given as nominee in the insurance policy. Subsequently, Sanjeev Kumar was murdered. It was disclosed by the applicant (Respondent No. 1) before the court below that his brother was killed on 3.4.2003. Since the applicant (Respondent No. 1) was nominee in the said policy he approached the respondent no. 5 / Golden Trust Financial Service for payment of the insurance amount but insurance company demanded Succession Certificate. Thereafter, he filed an application for grant of succession certificate which was numbered as Succession Case No. 76 of 2005 in respect of insurance policy as indicated above.

(3.) Before the court below respondent no. 3 and 4 i.e. father and mother appeared and filed rejoinder and they supported the claim for grant of succession certificate in favour of the applicant / Respondent No. 1. The appellant only raised an objection by filing a written statement. In the written statement the appellant disclosed that dispute in between the appellant and respondent no. 1 was already settled vide Succession Case No. 123 of 2004 which was earlier filed by the appellant ( Rashmi Bharti ). After filing of the said certificate succession case i.e. Succession Case No. 123 of 2004, due to intervention of well wishers of both the sides dispute was settled outside the court. It was further claimed that being legally married wife of Late Sanjeev Kumar, she had got statutory right to inherit in toto the estate of Sanjeev Kumar to the exclusion of all other relatives of Late Sanjeev Kumar. Besides this, the appellant further asserted that after the death of her husband Late Sanjeev Kumar, the Respondent No. 1 had also obtained Rs. 50,000/- from the account of Late Sanjeev Kumar lying in Punjab National Bank. However, before the court below except filing written statement and subsequent petition filed on behalf of appellant (Rashmi Bharti) under Order VII Rule II of the CPC, she did not adduce any evidence. After filing of the written statement by the appellant the Respondent No. 1 filed rejoinder to the written statement of the appellant, wherein, the Respondent No. 1 took a stand that the appellant herself had accepted that subsequent to death of her husband Late Sanjeev Kumar she had married with one Arun Sao, which was evident from the verification made by the appellant in her written statement. Before the court below four witnesses were examined on behalf of the applicant (Respondent No. 1). The respondent no. 3 was examined as witness no. 1 on behalf of opposite party. By filing an affidavit the respondent no. 3 asserted that the applicant / Respondent No. 1 was made nominee by the deceased and he was only entitled to get the policy amount. After hearing the parties and considering the materials available on record, the learned 1 st Additional District Judge allowed the application and directed for issuance of succession certificate in favour of the applicant / Respondent No. 1.