( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 26/10/1987 affirming me judgment of the Sub Judge, Delhi granting succession certificate to the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and dismissing the appellants Petition No. 738/74 filed under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act.

( 2 ) THE appellants and Smt. Nirmal Karir and her children (respondent Nos. No. 2 to 4) filed two separate petitions under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of succession certificate to the estate of one Shri Sham Sunder Karir, who died on 30. 7. 1974. Smt. Nirmal Karir claimed that she was married to the deceased Sham Sunder Karir on 26/09/1963 at Delhi according to Hindu rites and her three children (respondents 2o to 4) were bom to her out of the wedlock. On the contrary, the case of the appellant Smt. Sudershan Karir is that she was married to the said Sham Sunder Karir on 2/02/1962 at Shimla according to Hindu rites and her two children were born out of this wedlock. On these pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

" (I) Who out of Sudershan Karir and Nirmal Karir happens to be the legally wedded wife of Sham Sunder Karir? Onus on parties. (2) Whether Arvind Karir, Monica-Karir and Master Abhinav Karir were born out of the wedlock, of the deceased and Smt. Nirmal Karir and whether they would be entitled for grant of S. C. in this case? (3) Whether Mohinder Karir and Km. Ashu Karir were born out of the wedlock of the deceased and Smt. Sudershan Karir and whether they would be entitled for grant of S. C. in this case"?

( 3 ) ON consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, the Trial Court held that Smt. Nirmal Karir was the legally wedded wife of the deceased Sham Sunder Karir and the appellant Smt. Sudershan Karir has failed to establish her claim. Consequently, the learned Trial Court dismissed the appellants petition under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act and granted succession certificate to Smt. Nirmal Karir and the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to the estate of the deceased Sham Sunder Karir. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed an appeal before the learned Single Judge of this Court, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment upholding the findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court. Not satisfied with the dismissal of first appeal, the appellants have filed the present appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent Act.

( 4 ) ASSAILING validity of the impugned judgment, the learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the learned Single Judge had committed a manifest error of law in dismissing the appeal. According to him, the evidence on record is sufficient to prove that Smt. Sudershan s marriage with late Sham Sunder Karir was solemnized on 2/02/1962 at Shimla according to Hindu rites and both the Courts have misappreciated evidence adduced by the appellants. He further submitted that the appellants were also denied of an opportunity to produce additional evidence in support of their case.

( 5 ) IT is worth-mentioning that on the issue No. 1, the Trial Court held that Smt. Nirmal Karir was the legally wedded wife of the deceased Sham Sunder Karir and the appellants have failed to establish their claim to the estate of the said Sham Sunder Karir. In deciding me said issue the Trial Court took note of the following circumstances: (i) that the sole testimony of Smt. Sudershan (PW 1) about her alleged marriage with Sham Sunder Karir on 2/02/1962 at Jakhu temple, Shimla is replete with discrepancies and contradictions and so it does not inspire confidence. She testified that her marriage at Shimla was solemnized in the presence of Vidya Sagar Bhatia and Arjun Singh but none of them was produced in the witness box to corroborate her testimony; (ii) that Smt. Sudershan (PW 1) had nowhere stated in her evidence-in- chief that her marriage at Shimla was solemnized by Pandit Shivram. She closed her evidence on 15/05/1985 and till d