Mrs. Anima Hazarika, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is made under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 against the order dated 15.07.2006 passed in Succession Revocation Misc. (J) Case No. 2 of 2002 whereby and where under the learned Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Guwahati has revoked the Succession Certificate being No. 138 of 1999 issued in favour of the appellants on 11.05.1999 in S.C. Case No. 167/1999 on the application filed by the respondent herein under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act 1925 (in short "the Act" only). The material facts leading to the issuance of Succession Certificate and its revocation made subsequently is summarized here in below: --

The appellants herein had applied for issuance of Succession Certificate in the Court of District Judge, Guwahati on the demise of her husband Kutub Ali in respect of the receivable assets. Kutub Ali expired on 24.12.1997 leaving behind the appellants who was a Government servant in Brahmaputra Flood Control Board at Guwahati and accordingly the learned District Judge issued a Succession Certificate on 11.05.1999 in the Succession Case No. 167/1999 in respect of GPF, revised arrear pay, leave salary and revised gratuity amounting to Rs. 37,973/- in total.

2. On knowing the Succession Certificate issued in favour of the appellants by the learned District Judge, one Rehana Begum, the respondent herein filed an application under Section 383 of the Act contending inter alia that the certificate was obtained fraudulently by making of a false suggestion and by concealment from the court of something material to the case and accordingly prayed for revocation of the Succession Certificate granted in favour of the appellants being S.C. No. 138 of 1999.

3. The said application for revocation of Succession Certificate was numbered and registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 2 of 2002. The case however was transferred to the Court of Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Kamrup at Guwahati for final adjudication and the respondent herein has also filed an application for granting Succession Certificate in her name which was registered as S.C. Case No. 167 of 1999.

4. On receipt of the notice, the appellant entered appearance and contested the case by filing the written statement denying the allegations made in the revocation application contending inter alia that she is the legally married wife of Kutub Ali, since deceased and the respondent is not the wife of late Kutub Ali. She had further contended that the Succession Certificate issued in her favour was not obtained by fraudulent means and/or in suppression of facts as alleged and hence prayed for dismissal of the case being Misc. (J) Case No. 2/2002.

5. In order to prove the case of the contesting parties, the respondent herein has examined herself and another witness and exhibited 8 (eight) number of documents, whereas the appellants examined themselves along with one witness to dislodge the claim of the respondent. The learned court upon perusal of the pleadings, including the evidence on record and upon hearing the parties at length, revoked the Succession Certificate vide order dated 15.07.2006 being Succession Certificate No. 138 of 1999 which is under challenge before the court in the instant appeal.

6. Heard Mr. Surajit Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. B. Islam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

7. Opening the argument on behalf of the appellants Mr. Dutta, learned counsel would contend that the factum of marriage, with the deceased Kutub Ali with the respondent though denied by the appellant, the respondent has failed to adduce supporting evidence which in itself is an erroneous finding when the rule of evidence demands that the burden of proof rests on the party who asserts his/her right and there being no evidence, the order under challenge requires interference more so, when marking of a document as exhibit does not dispense with the proof which is lacking in