HARDAYAL Vs. PRITHVI RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal filed under Sec. 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') is directed against the order dt. 09.12.2006 passed by the District Judge, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') in Succession Application No. 29/2001, whereby the trial Court has allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 1 (now deceased) and rejected the objection filed by the appellant/non -petitioner No. 4. The short facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are that the respondent No. 1 -Original applicant (now deceased) Shri Prithvi Raj had filed the application under Sec. 372 of the said Act, seeking Succession Certificate of his sister Usha Arora, who had expired on 05.01.2001, in respect of the properties mentioned in Schedule -A to the application. In the said application, the appellant/non petitioner No. 4 had filed the objection contending inter -alia that he was the husband of the deceased Usha Arora and was entitled to get the Succession Certificate. The Court below, after taking into consideration the evidence on record, allowed the application of the respondent No. 1 and dismissed the objection of the appellant. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) IT has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Virendra Dave for the appellant that the appellant was shown as the husband of the deceased Usha Arora in the document Ex. D/1, which was her passbook for the GPF. He also submitted that even as per the letter Ex. D/18, the appellant was shown as the husband of the deceased Usha Arora. According to him, merely because the appellant had married to some other lady, that would not disentitle him to get the Succession Certificate as the legal heir of the deceased in respect of the properties left by her.

(3.) HAVING regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, and to the impugned order as well as the record of the case, it appears that the appellant/non -petitioner No. 4 had filed the objection in the proceedings filed by the respondent No. 1/applicant before the trial Court to the effect that the deceased Usha Arora was his legally wedded wife, however, the appellant had failed to prove the same by leading any cogent evidence. Further, it was specifically admitted by the appellant in his evidence that he was not staying with the deceased and during her lifetime, he had married one lady, named, Sudarshana Rani Rehan in the year 1970, and that he had also one child out of the said wedlock. It is also not disputed by the appellant that though the appellant was a Government Servant, he had never shown the deceased Usha Arora as his wife in any of his service records. Though, it is true that in the documents Ex. D/1 and D/18, the name of the appellant has been shown as the husband of the deceased Usha Arora, such documents would not entitle the appellant to get the Succession Certificate in respect of the properties left by the deceased Usha Arora. Though, there is no evidence to show that the appellant had married the deceased Usha Arora, even assuming that such a marriage had taken place, it appears that the appellant had never stayed with the deceased Usha Arora, and had married another lady. It was only after her death the appellant suddenly realized that he was the husband and legal heir of the deceased Usha Arora, for the purpose of getting the properties left by her. Such a stance by the appellant is not only illegal, but highly immoral. The appellant has morally no legs to stand. The trial Court has rightly considered the evidence on record and rejected the objection of the appellant, while allowing the application of the respondent No. 1. The Court does not find any illegality of infirmity in the impugned order and hence the appeal deserves to be dismissed. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.