The Subordinate Judge had jurisdiction to grant succession certificates, but the validity of marriages must be clearly established to determine legal heirs.

JUDGMENT :

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 04.07.2017 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-I, Begusarai in Succession Case No. 14 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the learned Sub Judge-I, Begusarai declared the plaintiffs/respondents as legal heirs and successors of one late Laxman Ram, who was an employee of East Central Railway, Sonepur.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioners, who were defendants before the learned trial court, claimed themselves to be the real legal heirs and successors of late Laxman Ram. The defendant/petitioner no. 1 claims to be the legally wedded wife of late Laxman Ram and defendant/petitioner no. 2 is the son of defendant/petitioner no. 1 with late Laxman Ram. The marriage between Laxman Ram and defendant/petitioner no. 1 was solemnized in the year 1993. It further appears from the record that plaintiffs/respondents filed Succession Case No. 14 of 2015 and has been able to obtain a Succession Certificate as the learned trial court held that defendant/petitioner no. 1 was the first wife of late Laxman Ram but she had no issues with late Laxman Ram and thereafter she left him and married with one Dharamraj Ram @ Dharamraj Paswan. After the petitioner no. 1 deserted Laxman Ram, he entered into wedlock with the plaintiff/respondent no.1. Proceeding on this assumption, the learned trial court held that marriage between Laxman Ram and defendant/petitioner no. 1 had got dissolved and thereafter late Laxman Ram married with the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 in 1998 and held that the respondents were entitled to get all the death benefits of late Laxman Ram dues from East Central Railway, Sonepur Division. The petitioner no. 1 was also held to be entitled to get family pension. This order has been challenged in the present case by the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned trial court has passed the order in a mechanical manner without applying its judicial mind. The learned trial court has not considered the fact that a petition for grant of succession certificate was not maintainable before it as the case was directly filed before the learned Subordinate Judge and not before the learned District Judge. Even if it was filed before learned Subordinate Judge, it could have brought the matter to the notice learned District Judge and thereafter the District Judge could have allowed the matter to proceed before the learned Subordinate Judge. The learned trial court committed further error when it proceeded in the matter when the matter was not maintainable before it on the ground of lack of jurisdiction relating to competency as well as territorial jurisdiction. Under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act (for short ‘the Act’), an application for certificate of succession is required to be filed before the court of learned District Judge.

The jurisdiction of the District Judge will be decided by the ordinary residence of the deceased at the time of his death and, if such residence was not within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Judge to whom the application is made, then the property of the deceased within those limits. In the present case, the deceased was ordinarily residents of district-Gaya whereas the petition has been filed in district-Begusarai, that too, in the court of learned Subordinate Judge. Learned counsel further submitted that even on merits of the case, the learned trial court has committed gross mistake and the impugned order is completely erroneous. The learned trial court failed to appreciate the fact that due to subsistence of first marriage, second marriage is void under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and also as per the provisions of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. The learned trial court without any documentary evidence and merely on oral submission and oral evidence, declared the defendant/petitioner no. 1 as ex-wife