MOSOMAT BALANDINA HANSDA Vs. MOSOMAT RODENMILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This interlocutory application has been filed by the appellant under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for production of additional evidence. The additional evidence, which is sought to be brought on record are Family Declarations of different years issued by Samaun Hansda, showing Balandina Hansda @ Balandini Hembrom as his wife.

(2.) Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that these are very important documents, which needs to be exhibited. As per him, these documents will have a great impact on the final decision of this appeal. He submits that these documents will substantially prove that deceased Samaun Hansda, who was an employee of Railways, had declared in his service record that this appellant to be his wife. He submits that if these documents are considered in evidence, this appeal will tilt in favour of the appellant as the Principal District Judge, Sahibganj has held that this appellant is not the wife of the deceased. He further submits that the instant appeal arises out of a judgment dated 23. 06.2015 passed by the Principal District Judge, Sahibganj in Succession Certificate Case No.06 of 2008 / Title Suit No.01 of 2015. It is the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the Court below has held that son of the deceased, born out of this appellant is entitled for share in the death-cum-retiral benefits of Samaun Hansda, but, since this appellant is not the wife, she is not entitled to receive any share. As per him, when these documents suggest that the deceased had declared the appellant to be his wife, she is also entitled to the benefits, thus, these documents are substantial piece of evidence. It is contended that service record of the deceased employee were not in the knowledge of the appellant and only recently, appellant could come to know about these documents, so she could not produce the same before the Trial Court, thus, for the interest of justice, it is prayed that this application be allowed.

(3.) Respondents objected the claim of the appellant and challenged the same submitting that the Court below has held in the Succession Certificate Case No.6 of 2008 that this appellant is not the legally wedded wife, rather the respondent Mosomat Rodenmila @ Rodensila Murmu is the legally wedded wife of the deceased. He submits that issue No.3 was framed to the effect that whether the family declaration as filed by the deceased in the Railways Department on 18. 02.1997 is genuine or not. After considering the said document, the Court below has answered the issue against this appellant, thus, there is no question to allow this application. Counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants submitted that the documents, which is sought to be brought on record, have got no relevance in the instant appeal. His submission is that in normal course, additional evidence should not be accepted, but, only if a case falls within the four corners of the exceptions then only a document can be exhibited. As per him, the case of the appellant does not fall within the four corners of the exceptions, thus, this application should be dismissed.