A succession certificate obtained by fraudulent concealment of heirs' relationships is revocable under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act.

ORDER :

GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. This appeal is under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act against the judgment dated 01.07.2006 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi in Misc. Case No. 285 of 1999, whereby and whereunder, the application under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act for revocation of the Succession Certificate dated 01.02.1999 issued in Succession Case No. 176 of 1997 has been dismissed.

2. Appellant no. 1 claims to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased Indrajit Roy, who died on 22.03.1997 and was the employee in RINPAS, Kanke as Jamadar. Appellant nos. 2 and 3 are the married son and daughter of the deceased.

3. It is the case of the appellants that the Succession Certificate was obtained by respondent no. 1 by suppressing the factum of marriage of Indrajit Roy with appellant no. 1 in Succession Case No. 176 of 1997 as they were also not made a party. Only respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 were impleaded as O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 in the said case. Once having come to know about issuance of the succession certificate, revocation case was filed which was dismissed. Hence this appeal

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellants that witnesses examined on behalf of the appellants, have consistently proved the marriage of appellant no. 1 with Late Indrajit Roy. Further, altogether Ext. 1 to 9 were adduced into evidence which established the relationship of the appellants with the deceased. It is argued that all these evidences were brushed aside and have not been considered by the learned Court below. Among the witnesses, P.W. 3 was the wife of the elder brother of the appellant no. 1.

5. Learned Tribunal has committed an error of record in para-7 in page-5 of the judgment that Ext. 3 to 9 have been marked with objection. It is further argued that these are the public documents issued by the competent authority as they were the educational certificates. Therefore, a formal proof of the documents was not required.

7. It is argued by learned counsel for the respondents that as many as ten witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondents before the court below. D.W. 2-Kashinath Thakur and D.W.8-Pawan Kumar have testified that Niyoti Roy was not married to the deceased Indrajit Roy and appellant nos. 2 and 3 were not his children.

8. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and materials on record, the manner in which the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellants before the court below has been brushed aside, appears to be somewhat inexplicable and without any rational justification.

9. Ext. 3 is the board certificate (original) issued in the name of Sujit Kumar Roy S/o of Indrajit Roy by Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, which is in the nature of public documents and has been proved and marked as exhibit without any objection by the respondents. Despite this, it is surprising that the Court did not accept it, merely on the ground that the signatures on the certificate was not proved. Similarly, the admit card issued by the Board, in the name of same person and by the same institution duly proved without any objection has not been accepted. Ext-5 and Ext-6 are school leaving certificate and character certificates issued by the school, cannot be said to be public documents, but they are adduced into evidence and marked as exhibits without objection, and therefore there was no reason to have discarded them. This is to be noted that these certificates were of the period during his lifetime. Once a document has been duly proved without objection, the same cannot be refused to be admitted (see Junul Surin v. Silas Munda, 2008 SCC OnLine Jhar 132)

It has been held in Rishipal Singh Solanki v. State of U.P. , (2022) 8 SCC 602 :

“33.10. Any document which is in consonance with public documents, such as matriculation certificate, could be accepted by the court or the J.J. Board provided such public document is credible and authentic as per the provisions of the Evidence