JAS RAJ CHOPRA, J.—This Misc. appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned District Judge, Udaipur, dated 16.1.84, whereby the learned District Judge has accepted the application for grant of Succession Certificate, filed by respondent Smt. Onkar Bai & her daughters Smt. Sushila Devi and Smt. Kailash Devi and rejected the objection petition filed by Smt. Ramsukhi Bai. Smt. Ramsukhi Bai has therefore filed this appeal.

2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated are that deceased Arjun Lal Badapaliwal, married Smt. Onkar Bai and out of that wedlock Onkar Bai gave birth to 2 daughters i.e. Smt. Sushila Devi and Smt. Kailash Devi. Smt. Ramsukhi Bai has admitted this position. She has, however, stated that she has contracted a Nata marriage with late Shri Arjunlal, almost 30 years prior to his death and, therefore, she is also his legally wedded wife. It is not disputed that Shri Arjunlal Badapaliwal has deposited a sum of Rs. 10,500/- with the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. Clock Tower Branch, Udaipur, and obtained a fixed deposit receipt on 20.4.76, bearing No. 326191/ 195.

3. The case of the respondents is that they being the legal heirs of late Shri Arjunlal, they were entitled to receive the amount of this fixed deposit receipt, whereas Smt. Ramsukhi Bai has claimed that she, being the Natayat wife of late Shri Arjunlal and being nominated by him to receive this amount, succession certificate should not be granted in favour of the respondents and she has further claimed that Ex. D. W. l(A.l) nomination letter dated 14.7.76, executed in her favour amounts to an assignment and even on that account she is entitled to receive this amount. Initially she tiled an application for grant of probate on the basis of this document dated 147.76, treating it to be a will of late Shri Arjunlal. That application for grant of probate was accepted by the learned District Judge, but on appeal, this contention of the appellant was rejected by this Court in S. B. C. Misc. First Appeal No. 121/78 decided by Honble M. C. Jain, J., on August 31, 1979. As her request for grant of probate was rejected, she claimed that she being the nominee, she is entitled to recover this amount on the basis of this document dated 14.7.76 and, therefore, succession certificate should not be issued in favour of the respondents-petitioners. No plea of assignment was taken by her in her written reply i.e. the objection petition, but in the memo of appeal this contention was raised that this letter may be treated even as an assignment.

4. I have heard Mr. Suresh Shreemali for the appellant and Shri B. L. Maheshwari for the respondents, and have meticulously gone through the record.

5. It is not disputed before me that Onkar Bai is the legally wedded wife of late Shri Arjunlal and Smt. Sushila Devi and Smt. Kailash Devi are her daughters. Smt. Ramsukhi Bai, when she entered the witness box as D. W. 1, has admitted this fact. She has, however, claimed that she has, however, contracted a Nata marriage with late Shri Arjunlal. It has been held by the learned District Judge that she has failed to prove this fact. Firstly, she has produced no independent witness to prove that she has contracted a nata-marriage with late Shri Arjunlal. She has claimed in her cross-examination that there is a custom amongst the Brhamins to contract a Nata-marriage. That caste custom has not been got proved by adducing any evidence. Rather no examination has been given, as to who amongst the Brahmins have contracted Nata-marriage. When she was asked as to what formalities were undergone at the time of the Nata-marriage, she has stated that no such formalities were undergone but later she said that they have been undergone. But she failed to state as to what were those formalities which have been undergone on the basis of which she may claim that her Nata-marriage with late Shri Arjunlal became complete. Of course she has stated that 4-5 ladies had taken their meals

Click Here to Read the rest of this document