The main legal point established is that a Succession Certificate can only be revoked for specific causes as outlined in Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act, and the revocation must be in accordance with the law.

A.H. Saikia, J.

1. Heard Mr. P. P. Das, learned Counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. J.I. Borbhuyan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. The legality and correctness of the judgment dated 4-1-2000 passed by the learned District Judge, Nalbari in Misc. (J) Case No. 50/99 arising out of Succession Case No. 28/98 has been challenged in this appeal on the sole ground that the learned Judge misconstrued Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short, the 'Act') and revoked the Succession Certificate duly granted to the appellant contrary to the provisions of Section 383 of the Act.

3. The factual matrix of the case as disclosed in the pleadings placed on record by the rival parties is that the appellant, the father of the deceased Dipen Talukdar who had an insurance policy for an amount of Rs. l.00.000/- in his name and on being shot dead by some miscreants on 19-8-97, approached the learned District Judge, Nalbari in Succession Certificate Case No. 28/98 on 29-4-98 for granting Succession Certificate in his favour with regard to the amount under the insurance policy aforesaid. The learned Judge on being satisfied with the materials on record made available before him, granted such Succession Certificate vide order dated 10-11-98.

4. Being aggrieved by such order dated 10-11-98, the respondent moved the same competent Court for revocation of the said Succession Certificate claiming that she was legally married wife of late Dipen Talukdar and their marriage was solemnized under the Hindu rites and customs on 22-3-96 and out of that wedlock a female child was born to them on 7-2-97. It was further alleged that such Succession Certificate was obtained by the appellant fraudulently and by suppressing material facts. In support of her claim of being a legally married wife, she produced documents i.e., Marriage Certificate issued on 16-1-99 which was marked as Exh. "A" as well as Birth Certificate dated 9-2-97 being Exh.-2 showing the birth of that female child wherein father's name was shown as Dipen Talukdar.

5. The learned Judge on perusal of those documents and upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties, in exercise of power under Section 383 of the Act, by the impugned judgment and order dated 4-1 -2000 revoked the Succession Certificate so granted in favour of the appellant and ordered for issuance of Succession Certificate to the respondent for Rs. 1.00.000/-. This is how the matter has been brought before this Court on appeal.

6. Mr. Das, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, assailing the impugned judgment and order, has strenuously argued that at the time of filing of the Succession certificate Case on 29-4-98, there was no suppression of material facts nor was the certificate obtained fraudulently inasmuch as the appellant was not at all aware of such marriage. Even he had no knowledge of his deceased son's marriage with the respondent. It was only on filing of the revocation application he came to know that the alleged marriage took place between his son and respondent on 22-3-96 as reflected in the alleged marriage certificate procured on 16-1-99. It is submitted that a written objection praying for revocation and grant of Succession Certificate was filed by the respondent only on 18-5-99 much after the grant of Succession Certificate in favour of the appellant and as such the question of suppression of material facts at the time of filing and obtaining the said certificate by the appellant does not arise at all. Moreso, denying such claim of legal marriage with his son, the appellant filed objection before the learned District Judge against the prayer for revocation but according to him, the learned Judge, ignored such objection and illegally and without jurisdiction revoked the Succession Certificate earlier granted in his favour. In the premises forenoted, his categorical stand is that such revocation of Succession Certificate hits the provisions of Section 383 of the Act.

7. On the