JUDGMENT :

NELSON SAILO, J.

1. Heard Ms. Rosalyn L. Hmar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Lalchhanhima Sailo, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is directed against the Order dated 24.10.2019 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Aizawl in RFA No. 7/2019, which arises out of the Order dated 17.06.2019 passed in Heirship Certificate No. 973/2019 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl.

3. The appellant is the second wife of Mr. P.C. Chawithuama and the respondent is the youngest son amongst 3 (three) sons from the first wife. Mr. P.C. Chawithuama expired on 02.12.2012 leaving behind a landed property covered by LSC No. 103101/01/847/2010 located at Field Veng, Zemabawk, Aizawl. He and the appellant did not have any children. The respondent on 14.06.2019 submitted a Heirship Certificate application before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl for the aforementioned landed property. The application was registered and numbered as Heirship Certificate Case No. 937/2019. The learned Senior Civil Judge, upon perusing the application and the documents annexed, granted the Heirship Certificate application vide Order dated 17.06.2019. Accordingly, Heirship Certificate was issued in favour of the respondent.

4. Aggrieved with the issuance of Heirship Certificate to the respondent, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl by filing RFA No. 7/2019. The grounds taken by the appellant before the First Appellate Court was that the Heirship Certificate was granted to the respondent by the learned Senior Civil Judge, without issuing any notice and without giving any opportunity to the appellant to contest the same. Also, no newspaper publication was made inviting objection, if any, to the application for Heirship Certificate. Against the appeal, the respondent filed a written statement stating inter-alia that the appellant was informed about the Heirship Certificate application being made to the Court and she was informed to appear before the Court. However, she refused to appear before the Court. Moreover, all the service benefits of Mr. P.C. Chawithuama was received by the appellant and that she having left the house barely 3 (three) months after the death of Mr. PC Chawithuama, and constructing her own house elsewhere, she is not entitled to the property in question. The learned First Appellate Court upon hearing the parties and on the basis of the pleadings dismissed the appeal and upheld the Heirship Certificate. Aggrieved, the appellant is before this Court in second appeal.

5. This Court, vide Order dated 04.08.2021 formulated the following substantial question of law:-

"Whether the Trial Court could have decided an application for grant of Heirship Certificate in respect of immovable property, without issuing notice to the necessary party/legal representative/s and without recording any evidence."

6. Ms. Rosalyn L. Hmar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that although according to the respondent, the appellant executed the letter of approval to handover the LSC to the respondent on 30.03.2013 but this was only under duress/threat and she was often abused and threatened by the respondent. She submits that the appellant was not issued any formal notice by the Court before the issuance of the Heirship Certificate and likewise, no newspaper publication was made about the application for Heirship Certificate submitted by the respondent. Therefore, the learned Senior Civil Judge could not have issued the Heirship Certificate in favour of the respondent. Aggrieved with the grant of Heirship Certificate to the respondent, the appellant preferred a first appeal before the First Appellate Court contending inter-alia that notice was not served to the appellant and therefore, the grant of Heirship Certificate should be set aside. But the First Appellate Court, without examining this issue and without