The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving marriage and relationship to establish entitlement to a succession certificate under the Indian Succession Act 1925, and the grounds for revocation of the certificate as provided in Section 383 of the Act.

T.V. NALAWADE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard both the sides by consent for final disposal.

2. The present proceeding is filed to challenge the judgment and order of Regular Civil Appeal No. 271 of 2009 which was pending in the Court of the Principal District Judge, Ahmednagar. The appeal was filed by the present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to challenge the decision of application which was filed under section 383 of the Indian Succession Act 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In the application bearing Civil Misc. Application No. 81 of 2008 the present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had challenged the succession certificate granted in favour of present petitioners in Misc. Application No. 91 of 2007 which was filed under section 372 of the Act. The trial Court had refused to revoke the succession certificate but the appeal is allowed by the District court and the certificate is revoked.

3. The application bearing No. 91 of 2007 which was filed under section 372 of the Act was filed by present petitioner Beersing Karosiya, a brother of deceased Pratap Karosiya. The respondents of the said proceeding were other brothers of Pratap. Pratap was working as driver in Zilla Parishad Ahmednagar and he died on 20.2.2007 while he was in service. Pratap had rendered pensionable service. The amounts like provident fund, gratuity and amount of insurance are payable in respect of the service of Pratap from his office. The other brothers had given no objection for giving certificate in favour of Beersing. The procedure was followed like publishing notice of the proceeding in news paper, publishing of notice in Court campus etc. Nobody had taken objection. Evidence on affidavit was given and on that basis the certificate was issued on 11.2.2008.

4. In the application bearing No. 81 of 2008 under section 383 of the Act, Tanhabai, applicant No. 1 of that proceeding contended that she is widow of Pratap. Other applicant Arjun of that proceeding contended that he is son of Tanhabai born from Pratap. It was contended that marriage of the deceased with Tanhabai had taken many years back as per Hindu rites and custom and it was contended that they are the legal heirs of Pratap. They also contended that they had already obtained certificate of heirship on 8.10.2007 in Misc. Application No. 86 of 2007. They contended that in the application filed by Beersing under section 372 of the Act they were not parties and they had no knowledge about filing of such application though notice was published. They contended that by playing fraud and by misleading the Court Beersing had obtained the certificate. They contended that when Beersing filed succession certificate in Zilla Parishad office for getting aforesaid amounts they came to know about issuance of such certificate. They admitted that Beersing and respondents of proceeding No. 81 of 2008 were brothers of deceased Pratap but they contended that as they are widow and son, the succession certificate cannot be granted in favour of brothers of Pratap. They prayed for revocation of the certificate. Tanhabai wants to claim aforesaid amounts and the family pension.

5. Misc. Application No. 81 of 2008 was contested by present applicants, brothers of Pratap. They denied that deceased was married and Tanhabai is widow of the deceased and Arjun is son of the deceased. They contended that the deceased had nominated his younger brother Indal for getting the amounts in the office of Zilla Parishad. They contended that Beersing was taking care of Pratap during his last days. They contended that Tanhabai had married with one Mohan Sonawane and respondent No. 2 was born to Tanhabai from said Mohan Sonawane. They contended that Saraswatibai and Indubai are other two issues of Tanhabai born from Mohan Sonawane. They contended that Arjun is married and his issues also are using the surname as Sonawane. They contended that Tanhabai had not taken divorce from Sonawane and she had not performed marriag