Point of Law: Grant of succession certificate – Justified - Respondent No.1 is a Christian and deceased is Hindu by religion- continuous living together of deceased and respondent No.1- been well established.

ORDER :

Rajani Dubey, J

1. This appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 07.03.2017 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Manendragarh, District Koria (C.G.), in Civil Suit No.24A/2008, decreeing the suit filed by respondent No.1/plaintif and declared her as legally wedded wife of late S. Surya Rao and S. Chandrashekhar Rao, S. Shivani Rao and S. Sunita Rao as children born out of their wedlock.

2. Admitted facts of the case are that S. Surya Rao was working as Safety Officer in Indian Railway who superannuated on 30.11.2006 and respondent No.1/plaintif superannuated in the year 2006 as Teacher from Govt. Aadim Jaati Kanya Ucchatar Madhyamik Vidyalay.

3. Before the trial Court, respondent No.1/plaintif had filed a declaratory suit on the ground that her marriage was solemnized with S. Surya Rao in the year 1972 according to Hindu Rites, Rituals and Customs and out of their wedlock son S. Chandrashekhar Rao, daughter S. Shivani Rao and S. Sunita Rao were born. Her name also finds place in voter list and voter ID card as wife of S. Surya Rao and as such she is entitled to receive the amount deposited with respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein. During service period of late S. Surya Rao, he was residing at Railway Quarter in Bilaspur and respondent No.1/plaintif was living with her children at Manendragarh.

After retirement, S. Surya Rao started residing with respondent No.1/plaintif at Chanwaridand, District Manendragarh. On 18.11.2007, S. Surya Rao left for heavenly abode at Manendragarh and after his death, appellant/defendant Nanki Bai declared herself to be wife of late S. Surya Rao and demanded all dues, savings and pension of late S. Surya Rao from respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein.

4. Defendant/appellant herein denied all allegations in her written statement and contended that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 is a believer of Christianity and late S. Surya Rao was a Hindu. Appellant is a legally wedded wife of late S. Surya Rao and out of their wedlock one daughter Likita was born out. She was residing with S. Surya Rao at Bilaspur, and after retirement at Manendragarh. Plaintiff/respondent No.1 and his son, after the death of S. Surya Rao, encroached upon the house of late S. Surya Rao, report of which was filed by her at Police Station as also before Divisional Magistrate.

5. Respondent No. 2 and 4 denied the plaint averments & respondent No.3 did not file any written statement before the Court below. Respondent No.5 supported the claim of defendant No.1/appellant herein.

6. The learned trial Court, after considering oral and documentary evidence of both the parties, decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein and declared her as legally wedded wife of late S. Surya Rao and son S. Chandrashekhar Rao, daughter S. Shivani Rao and S. Sunita Rao as children born out of their wedlock. Hence, this appeal by the appellant.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is not in accordance with the law as late S. Surya Rao is having name of appellant and her daughter in his service record. Respondent No.1 is admittedly Christian and her children married under Christianity. He further submits that late S. Surya Rao was Hindu by religion and respondent No.1 being Teacher has never mentioned about her husband in her service record, which clearly shows that she is not a legally wedded wife of S. Surya Rao. He also submits that respondent No.1 instituted a case for grant of succession certificate, which was dismissed and, therefore, she has chosen not to implead SECR in said suit for declaration, which itself is an indicative of the fact that she wanted to suppress material facts. It is next submitted that from service record and deposition of plaintif's witnesses it is evident that the appellant was duly recorded as wife and beneficiary of late S. Surya Rao. Therefore, the impugned order being contrary to the fact situation of the case, is liable to be set aside. In suppo