The present appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act,1925( hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) has been preferred against an order dated 30.11.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, IVth, Patna in Misc. Case No.112 of 2003, whereby the learned Addl. District Judge has allowed the petition filed on behalf of the petitioners/ Respondents under Section 383 of the Act for revocation of the order dated 20.01.2003 passed in Succession Case No. 91 of 2002 by the learned Addl. District Judge VI, Patna, whereby it was directed for issuance of Succession Certificate in favour of Opp.Party( appellant herein).

2. Short fact of the case is that Opp.Party/appellant herein after the death of one Bihari Ram, who was a government employee, filed an application under Section-372 of the Act for grant of Succession Certificate authorizing her to collect the amount of Provident Fund and Gratuity left by Late Bihari Ram claiming to be his wife. In support of her claim for grant of succession certificate, the applicant Urmila Devi was examined as A.W.1 and her son Ranjit Kumar was examined as A.W.2.

3. By the order dated 20.01.2003, the learned 6th Addl. District Judge, Patna allowed Succession Case No.91 of 2002 and directed for issuance of Succession Certificate in favour of appellant Urmila Devi authorizing her to collect the amount left by her deceased husband, Bihari Ram in G.P.F. Account and Gratuity. After the order dated 20.01.2003 passed in Succession Case No.91 of 2002, petitioners/ respondents filed a petition under Section 383 of the Act vide Misc.Case No.112 of 2003 for revocation of order dated 20.01.2003 passed in Succession Case No.91 of 2002 . In Misc. Case No.112 of 2003, both parties were allowed to adduce evidence and finally the learned Addl. District Judge IV, Patna by order dated 30.11.2010 allowed Misc.Case No.112 of 2003 and revoked the order dated 20.01.2003 passed in Succession Case No.91 of 2002, whereby direction was issued for issuance of Succession Certificate in favour of Urmila Devi ( appellant herein). Aggrieved with the order dated 30.11.2010, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

4. Sri Madan Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ajay Kumar Sinha, learned who has appeared on behalf of all the Respondents, were heard at length and order was reserved on 03.08.2012.

5. While assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that late Bihari Ram died on 17.09.2001 leaving behind him the appellant and her son as legal heirs. Her husband was a Class-III employee in the office of the Director, Maleria Control Unit, Patna. It was submitted that her husband was earlier married with one Janki Devi in the year 1965. However, she died in the year 1990. After the death of Janki Devi (first wife of Late Bihari Ram), Bihari Ram started living with the appellant at Patna as husband and wife and out of their wedlock, a son was born. The appellant had solemnized marriage with Bihari Ram on 18.11.1999 at Hanuman Mandir according to Hindu rites and rituals, which was subsequently affirmed by an affidavit dated 19.11.1999 with their joint photographs, which was authenticated and declaration certificate was granted by the Notary Public, Patna on 19.11.1999. It was argued that her husband Bihari Ram was killed on 17.09.2001. However, his dead body was cremated by the police. Subsequently, after knowing the fact regarding the death of her husband, the appellant performed Shradh ceremony and thereafter, for obtaining succession certificate, a succession case vide Succession Case No.91 of 2002 was filed in the year 2002. In the succession case, the appellant and her son Ranjit Kumar were examined as Applicant Witnesses. Her son Ranjit Kumar had issued no objection in favour of the appellant. In the succession proceeding, death certificate of Late Bihari Ram was brought on record. In the case, citation was issued inviting objection, but none had filed any o