VIJAY LAXMI Vs. K SIMACHALAN ALIAS SIMACHALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. One K. Shankar Rao, who was employed in S.M.S. III Department of Tisco Ltd., died in harness, on 25-8-1996. In respect of total settlement dues of Rs.3,53,151/- with Tisco Ltd. Smt. Vijay Laxmi with her minor son and daughter filed Succession Certificate Case No. 97 of 1996, for grant of succession certificate, which has been dismissed by impugned order dated 20-8-1999. Smt. Vijay Laxmi claimed herself to have been married with K. Shankar Rao on 24-10-1983, after death of her first husband, M. Satyanarayan. During his life time, K. Shankar Rao himself had appointed her as beneficiary in respect of Limited Employees Scheme, Ext. 1. as employee of Tisco, the deceased was a member under the said scheme. In his insurance policy, Ext. 2, he had described Smt. Vijay Laxmi as his wife and mentioned her name as nominee.

(2.) Smt. K. Simachalan, mother of deceased, K. Shankar Rao filed objection to the grant of succession certificate to Smt. Vijay Laxmi and her two minor children. She claimed that her son was a bachelor and was neither married with Vijay Laxmi nor her minor son and daughter were born from him. At her instance, personal file of the deceased was produced from the office of Tisco Ltd. In the said file there was a declaration form, (Ext.A), duly filled in by the deceased himself, wherein he had mentioned about his status as unmarried. In the said file there was another application (Ext.B) for issuance of medical book submitted by the deceased, wherein he had mentioned his name as well as name of his parents and none was mentioned as his wife. The aforesaid two documents, Exts. A and B were of the period prior to 24-10-1983, when Vijay Laxmi claimed to have been married with the deceased and, therefore, were not very much relevant for the present purpose. In order to substantiate her claim, the applicants examined A.Ws. 1 to 7. The objecter also examined three witnesses. Admittedly, the deceased, for some reason, had left the residential quarter allotted to him by Tisco Ltd, wherein his brother, mother and sisters were living and he was living in a rented house along with Vijay Laxmi and minor children. In her deposition as A.W. 1. applicant Vijay Laxmi stated that after death of her first husband, from whom she had already two issues, she married the deceased and from him she got two issues, who were applicants 2 and 3, along with her in the present case. She further stated that her marriage had taken place in a temple and no saptapadi and other rituals in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs were preformed and only the deceased put vermilian and Mangal Sutra and both of them exchanged garlands. However, after discussing the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, brought on record, the Court below dismissed her case to grant succession certificate. The Court observed that it was difficult to come to conclusive finding that the applicants, in fact, had absolutely nothing to do with the deceased, though the question remains unanswered thatif certain documents the applicant not has been shown as nominee of the deceased, then why in the other relevant papers, such as paper of settlement dues, the name of objector, K. Simachalan has been mentioned, who is mother of the deceased. On the basis of whatever had been stated by the lady herself regarding her marriage with the deceased, the Additional District Judge declined to go into the question of legality of the marriage and observed that it was difficult to come to conclusion that applicantNo. 1 being the wife of the deceased was entitled to grant succession certificate in her favour.

(3.) It is well settled that a proceeding for grant of succession certificate is summary in nature and that no rights are finally decided in such proceeding. Section 387 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 puts the matter beyond any doubt. It categorically provides that no decision under Part X, upon any question of right between the parties shall be held to bar the trial of the same question in any suit or any other proceeding between the same parties. Thus S. 387 permits thefiling of a suit or other proceeding, even though a succession certificate might have been granted or refused. Merely because issues were raised and/or evidence was led, in respect of an application for succession certificate, it does not mean that the findings given thereunder are final and operate as res judicata. Even in summary proceedings, issues can be raised and/or evidence can be led, but the proceedings remain summary even though the Court may, in its discretion, permit leading of evidence and raising of issues. So in a subsequent suit the crucial issues must be decided afresh, untrammelled or unifluenced by any finding made in the proceedings for grant of succession certificate. The Court below was not authorised in the present proceeding to decide finally that Vijay Laxmi was actually married wife of late K. Shankar Rao and, therefore, rightly rejected applicant's claim for grant of succession certificate. The applicants are at liberty to get their right, title and interest declared in respect of estate left by late K. Shankar Rao, by a competent Court of Civil jurisdiction, wherein observations/findings recorded in the present proceeding shall not operate as res judicata. There is no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed with the aforesaid observations.Appeal dismissed.