Suppression of important facts regarding legal heirs and divorce from the deceased can lead to revocation of a succession certificate.

JUDGMENT :

1. Appellant Mst. Sara moved an application for issuance of Succession Certificate before District Court Baramulla, claiming that she being real and legal heir of her deceased husband Abdul Aziz Bhat S/O Lassi Bhat R/O Buchoo Distrtict Baramulla is entitled to certificate under Succession Certificate in respect of Rs. 24,000/- as pension of 8 months w.e.f. February 2008 to September 2008 under PP No. 37174-C at J&K Bank Tarzoo, Sopore left behind by deceased. She had not impleaded any other person as party except the general public and in pursuance to public notice nobody appeared to resist the claim of the petitioner and on recording the evidence of her witnesses the District Court Barmulla, vide order/judgment dated 8.11.2008 passed in file No. 85/S granted the succession certificate in her favour.

2. Respondents 5 to 8 moved an application for revocation of the Succession Certificate issued by District Court in favour of appellant Mst. Sara on the grounds that respondent Raja Begum was wife of the deceased whereas other respondents are his children and alleged that the appellant had fraudulently obtained the certificate which is liable to be cancelled and it was further prayed to revoke the said certificate and a fresh certificate was prayed to be issued in their favour and the amount received by the appellant herein be also refunded by her. It was alleged by them that the appellant Mst. Sara who was married to the deceased had been divorced some 16 years before the death of the deceased and she had been paid all whatever was due to her at the time of divorce. It is further pleaded that the deceased had six wives namely 1. Mst. Jumli, 2. Mst. Bega 3. Mst. Haseena 4. Mst. Rathi 5. Mst. Sara and 6. Mst. Raja Begum, out of whom Mst. Rathi and Mst. Haseena have died issueless; whereas Mst. Sara who also had no issue was divorced . Mst. Bega had one son namely Gh. Hassan Bhat from the deceased and she too had been divorced; whereas Mst. Jumli who had passed away had four children namely 1. Mohd. Sultan Bhat 2. Ali Mohammad Bhat 3. Mst. Zaina and 4. Mst. Sara. It was also alleged that the appellant while filing application for grant of Succession Certificate had not arrayed any of the family members or near relatives of the deceased as party which was requirement under Sub clause (c) of clause (1) of Section 6 of the Succession Certificates Act. They also alleged that public notice was published in an unpopular daily newspaper “Roshini” which had a very limited circulation in the valley and that the appellant Mst. Sara by misrepresenting in the court received the monthly family pension from District Treasury Baramulla.

3. After recording the evidence and hearing both the parties the learned District Judge Baramulla vide judgment dated 04.12.2013 passed in file Succession Revocation No. 163/2009, ordered revocation of the Succession Certificate issued in favour of the appellant and it was directed to recover the said amount from the appellant and disburse among the respondents 5 to 8 herein as per following shares :

i/ Petitioner No. 4 (Widow) shall get 1/8th share out of total amount of Rs. 24000/- i.e. Rs.3000/-

ii/ Petitioner No. 2 (Son) shall get two shares out of remaining amount of Rs. 21000/- i.e. Rs. 14000/-

iii/ Petitioner No. 3 (dauther) shall get one share out of remaining amount of Rs. 21000/- i.e. Rs. 7000/-.

It was further directed that the DDO of the concerned Department shall forward the case for grant of family pension in favour of the persons entitled under the rules governing the same and that this certificate is granted purely for the collection of amount in question.

4. Aggrieved of order/judgment dated 04.12.2013 ( hereinafter called impugned order) the appellant has challenged the same on various grounds that she was widow of deceased Ab. Aziz Bhat and that no issue had borne out of the wedlock; that she was holding a ration card to take ration from CA&PD Department; that will deed had been execute