Nominee status can impact succession claims; both marriages considered in succession certificate decision despite first marriage's validity.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J

Notice upon the sole respondent has been validly served. However, the sole respondent has not appeared and with a view to provide one more opportunity to the sole respondent the matter was adjourned on 02.03.2023 and again on 12.02.2025 inspite of that nobody appeared on behalf of the sole respondent. Today, on repeated calls, nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent in view of this appeal is being heard in absence of sole respondent.

2. Heard Mr. Chanchal Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.

3. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 30.11.2016 passed by learned District Judge-I, Ramgarh in Succession Certificate Case No. 31/2004.

4. Mr. Chanchal Jain, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant herein filed Succession Case under section 372 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 with prayer to grant succession certificate in her favour for collection of gratuity amount and other emoluments pertaining to the office of Chief General Manager, Central Coal Fields Limited with interest thereon as mentioned in Schedule ‘A’ of the petition. He further submits that the learned District Judge has been pleased to grant succession certificate in favour of the appellant and sole respondent. He then submits that the appellant is the first wife of the deceased and the sole respondent is the second wife of the deceased. He submits that in existence of first marriage, the second marriage has been solemnized in view of that second marriage is itself void and in view of that the learned court has erred in passing the said order in favour of the sole respondent also. He further submits that the application was not preferred by the sole respondent in view of also the said order is bad in in law. He submits that one O.P. witness has stated that the appellant herein is entitled for the succession certificate. He further submits that second wife is not legal heir and successor in view of that also the learned court has erred in passing the said order. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be set aside.

5. The learned court has considered two witnesses examined on behalf of the appellant being Manjeet Kaur, the appellant herself and Kartar Singh, Witness No, 2. Ext. 1 was the original Death Certificate of Ajit Singh Ext. 1/1 was the original Death of Hanse Kaur, who is mother-in-law. Ext. 2 was the Marriage Certificate dated 15/10/99 issued by Sri Gur Singh Sabha Gurudawara, Bhurkunda Bazar of the first wife who is appellant. Ext. 3 was the family register dated 28/04/04 issued by B.D.O. Patratu. Ext. 4 was the I-Card of Late Ajit Singh. Ext. 5 was the Marriage Certificate dated 15/10/91 issued by Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Dewariya, Bargawna in favour of the appellant. Ext. 6 was the saving bank pass book in the name of Ajit Singh and Hanse Kaur of Punjab National Bank. On the other hand the sole responent has produced eight witnesses. Besides the witnesses, Ext. A was the Marriage Certificate issued from Maa Chhinmastika Religious Trust. Ext.B was the signature of Dilip Chaterjee on a photocopy of the register relating to Maa Chhinmastika Mandir Trust Committee. Ext. C and C/1 were the signatures and endorsement on a petition dated 12-06-2001. Ext. D was the signature of Dy. Personnel Manager, Barkakana. Ext. E, E/1 & E/2 were the signatures of the Dy. Karmik Manager on the Service Book of Ajit Singh. Ext. F was the endorsement and signature of personnel Manager on the first page of Service Book of Ajit Singh. Ext. G wa