1. This revision application is directed against the order of issuance of Succession Certificate in favour of present Respondent passed by the by Civil Judge Senior Division, Beed in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.161 of 2005 decided on 29.9.2006, which judgment and order is further confirmed by the learned District Judge-I, Beed in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.101 of 2006 decided on 24.10.2007.

2. It is not disputed that Madhukar Machile retired from government service on superannuation on 27.8.1992. Admittedly, he was father of present revision applicant Sushma Bodas who is his married daughter residing at Akola. Present Respondent Malti filed Application bearing Misc. Civil Application No.161 of 2005 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Beed, seeking grant of succession certificate in respect of the amounts lying in the name of deceased Madhukar Machile in his bank accounts with State Bank of Hyderabad, Bank of Maharashtra and Beed District Central Cooperative Bank, Beed and also for family pension. It is stated that that Madhukar died on 24.5.2005 at Akola. According to Respondent Malti, she is the widow of Madhukar; Madhukar was survived by the respondent and present revision applicant. The respondent-applicant Malti in the application has stated that she married deceased Madhukar on 7.5.1999 at Shri Kankaleshwar Temple, Beed and the marriage was registered on 11.5.1999 with the office of Marriage Registrar, Beed.

3. The said application (MCA 161/2005) was opposed by present revision applicant Sushma Bodas who was opponent in that application, by filing written say at Exhibit 16/B. She denied the relationship between applicant Malti and deceased Madhukar. According to her, Malti was working as cook at the house of Madhukar who was residing alone at Beed and during that period certain documents were prepared. Thus, the application for succession certificate was challenged mainly on the ground that Malti was not the widow of deceased Madhukar.

4. Learned Civil Judge,(S.D.) Beed, allowed said Misc.Civil Appln. No.161 of 2005 holding that the applicant therein i.e. Malti was legally wedded wife of Madhukar and as such she was entitled to succession certificate. It is held by learned Judge that the applicant Malti and Respondent Sushma (present Respondent and revision applicant respectively) were entitled to 1/2 share each in the property of deceased Madhukar and succession certificate was directed to be issued to the extent of 1/2 share each.

5. As against the said order of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Beed, present revision applicant filed appeal, bearing Misc. Civil Appeal No.101 of 2005 which came to be dismissed by the learned District Judge-I, Beed and hence present civil revision application.

6. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. Learned Counsel for revision petitioner drew my attention to paragraph 5 of the judgment of the trial court and submitted that there is no evidence to show that the mandatory rites of Homa and Saptapadi were proved in respect of alleged marriage between Madhukar and Malti and other evidence on record is not sufficient to prove the said marriage.

7. The trial court, so also the District Court, have relied upon the statement of Respondent Malti at Exhibit 35. She deposed that her marriage with Madhukar was performed at Kankaleshwar temple, Beed on 7.5.1999 and the same was registered on 11.5.1999. The copy of registration of marriage is produced at Exhibit 31. She further stated that one Kalyan Bhanudasrao Maharaj, who was Gurav (priest) at Kankaleshwar temple had officiated the marriage. Besides deposition of Malti on oath and the certificate of marriage, learned Counsel for Respondent also relied upon certain other documents, such as, application made by deceased Madhukar to the Accountant General, Nagpur, which was dated 8.2.2000. By that application, deceased had informed the Accountant General, Nagpur to treat Respondent Malti as his