The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to determine the validity of marriages, legitimacy of children, and entitlement to succession.

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. This is an appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act against the Order, dated 31.8.2002, passed by the learned District Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati, in Succession Case No. 327/2001, granting succession certificate.

2. In a nut-shell, the facts leading to the present appeal may be stated as follows :

(i) An application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act was made by the respondent No. 1, Smti Moni Das, praying for issuance of succession certificate in respect of debts and securities left by her husband Basanta Kr. Das, who was an employee in the Irrigation Department, Government of Assam, and who had died on 8.6.2000, the case of the respondent No. 1 being that the deceased Basanta Kumar Das had married the respondent No. 1 on 12.2.2002 and out of their wed-lock, two female issues, namely, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were borne, both of whom are still minors and living under the care and custody of respondent No. 1. The prayer for issuance of succession certificate, so made, was resisted by the appellant No. 1, the case of the appellant No. 1 being, in brief, that the deceased Basanta Kr. Das had married the appellant No. 1 way back on 17.12.1978 and out of their wed-lock, a female issue, namely, appellant No. 2 was born, the said deceased had not married the respondent No. 1 nor had the said deceased left behind two minor female children through his alleged marriage with respondent No. 1.

(ii) Both the parties adduced their evidence by examining witnesses. Upon conclusion of the hearing, the learned District Judge passed the impugned order, dated 31.8.2002, afore mentioned declaring to the effect, inter alia, that all the three female children of the said deceased would be entitled to one share each in the properties left behind by the said deceased, but so far as the remaining one share is concerned, the same shall be divided equally between deceased Basant Kr. Das's two widows, namely, appellant No. 1 and respondent No. 1. Feeling aggrieved by the order, so passed, the present appellants have, now, preferred this appeal.

3. I have perused the materials on record including the impugned order. I have heard Mr. B. Singha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, and Mr. B. Ramchiary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

4. While considering the merit of the impugned order, it needs to be noted that the fact that the said deceased had married the appellant No. 1 and that the appellant No. 2 is their legitimate minor daughter was not in dispute in the learned Court below. What was in dispute was that the said deceased had also married the respondent No. 1 and/or that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were born out of cohabitation between the said deceased and the respondent No. 1. However, notwithstanding the fact that the appellant No. 1 had denied that the marriage had taken place between the said deceased and the respondent No. 1, the learned District Judge found and held that the said deceased had, indeed, married the respondent No. 1 too. This finding was arrived at by the learned District Judge on the basis of the admissions made by the appellant No. 1 herself and her witnesses. The finding so arrived at by the learned District Judge that the respondent No. 1 too had married the said deceased is not, now, disputed before me. This apart, upon careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, I find that the evidence on record amply proves that the said deceased had, indeed, married the respondent No. 1 and out of their cohabitation, the two female children, namely, respondent Nos. 2 and 3, were born and both of them are still minors. This apart, the evidence on the record also convincingly proves that the said deceased had married the appellant No. 1 way back on 17.12.1978 and out of their wed-lock, one female child, who is still minor, namely, appellant No. 1 was born. This fact has also not been disputed before me.

5. In the face of the above admitted facts, the legality or ot