A Succession Certificate cannot be revoked through a separate original petition; it must be pursued as a miscellaneous application under the Indian Succession Act.

JUDGMENT :

(Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.)

Impugning the Order dated 24.02.2006 passed in S.A. O.P.No.5 of 2002, on the file of the Court of I Additional District Judge, Ongole, the unsuccessful petitioner carried the matter before this Court in this C.M.A.

2. The appellant herein was the petitioner. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein were the Respondents before the trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to hereinafter as they arrayed before the trial Court.

3. Heard Sri Satish Deshpandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri V.D.Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for Respondents.

4. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

a. Petitioner filed the petition under Sections 372 and 383 of Indian Succession Act stating that she is legally wedded wife of deceased/ P.C.Bhaktharaju seeking the following reliefs:

(i) To issue Succession Certificate in her favour to withdraw the schedule amounts;

(ii) To take appropriate action against Respondent Nos.1 to 3 for giving false evidence in O.P. No.176 of 2001;

(iii) To revoke the Succession Certificate granted in favour of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in O.P.No.176 of 2001, dated 12.07.2001.

b. Petitioner further stated that the deceased died on 12.11.1999 intestate, while working in Revenue Department. She further claims that she married him in 1989. She is entitled to terminal benefits of the deceased shown in the schedule.

c. While so, Respondent Nos., 1 and 2 claiming to be brought up sons of the deceased filed O.P.No.176 of 2001 in District Court for Succession Certificate. Respondent No.3/ Sugunamma appeared before the Court in the said matter and reported no objection.

d. Accordingly, the District Court granted Succession Certificate in favour of Respondent Nos.,1 and 2.

e. Petitioner challenges that Exs.A.1 and A.2 are collusive affairs and are not binding on her. So, the Succession Certificate granted in O.P.No.176 of 2001 has to be revoked.

f. It is further stated that the Service Register of the deceased shows one Deva Kumari as his wife and that she underwent Tubectomy, after two children and therefore, the deceased Bhaktharaju was granted family planning incentive by the Government, which is Ex.B.4.

g. Petitioner further stated that the entries in Ex.B.4 Service Register are manipulated. They are not the statements of the deceased, but, the said endorsement has been brought into existence subsequent to his death.

5. The case of the Respondents 1 and 2, is as follows:

a. In counter, Respondent Nos., 1 and 2 contend that the petitioner is not the legally wedded wife of deceased and that one Deva Kumari is the wife of Bhaktharaju, who died subsequently and Respondents 1 and 2, who are the brother’s sons of the deceased were brought up by him as his sons.

b. Respondents further contended that petitioner is their distant relative and she is the wife of one Karasala Salmon and she stayed with her husband at Singarayakonda.

c. Respondents further stated that the proceedings in O.P.No.176 of 2001 are genuine and the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs.

6. Respondent No.3 also raised the contentions of Respondent Nos., 1 and 2, but she never asserted herself to be the wife of deceased Bhaktharaju. Respondent Nos., 4 and 5 contended that the wife of the deceased Bhaktharaju is one Deva Kumari and the petitioner is not entitled to the Succession Certificate.

7. Learned trial Judge, in the light of the rival pleadings, framed the following points for consideration:

1. Whether the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of Sri P.C.Bhaktharaju?

2. If not, whether the petitioner is the best person to give valid discharge to the debts due to the estate of the deceased?

3. Whether the succession certificate granted in O.P.No.176/2001 can be revoked in this application?

8. During the course of enquiry, petitioner herself was examined as P.W.1. One Budala James, who is the cousin of the deceased was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A.1 to A.14 were the documents