JUDGMENT

Lok Pal Singh, J. - This civil revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.08.2016 passed by Additional District Judge, Kotdwar, Garhwal in Civil Appeal No.17 of 2015 Bindra Devi and others vs. Kumari Makani and others, dismissing the civil appeal, filed on behalf of the revisionists/defendants and confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2015 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kotdwar, Garhwal, whereby the succession application moved by the respondents/plaintiffs has been allowed.

2. Factual matrix of the case is that the respondent no.1 Km. Makni Devi moved an application for issuance of succession certificate in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kotdwar Garhwal stating that deceased Mahavir Singh was posted as Beldar in India Trade Promotion Organization, Pragati Maidan, Pragati Bhavan, New Delhi, and he died on 05.02.2008. The applicant/respondent no.1, for getting the retiral dues of the deceased, moved an application for issuance of succession certificate in her name. In the application, she stated that she is daughter of the deceased Mahavir Singh. Opposite party nos.1 to 4 are daughters, opposite party no.8 is wife and opposite party nos.9 and 10 are sons of the deceased. The revisionist/opposite party no.8 Smt. Bindra Devi filed her objections to the said application and stated that she is the widow of the deceased and prayed that the retiral dues may be ordered to be paid to her and her minor son Lakki. Revisionist further stated that the respondent no.1, in connivance with her married sisters, and by concealing the true facts, has filed the present application. She further stated that after the death of Rameshwari Devi, first wife of the deceased, the deceased married to her and revisionist no.3 Lakki begotten from the said wedlock and their names are duly entered in the service records. After hearing the parties and on perusal of evidence, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kotdwar, recorded a finding that the revisionist no.1 has admitted in her cross-examination that she was earlier married to Rajendra Singh and no decree of divorce was obtained from the Family Court. It was thus observed that the revisionist is not a legally wedded wife of Late Mahavir Singh, however, the child born from the said wedlock is a legitimate child. Accordingly, by judgment and order dated 31.08.2015, learned Civil Judge, Senior Division disposed of the application thereby issuing a succession certificate to get the retiral dues of the deceased as per 1/6th share each in favour of respondent nos.1 to 5 as well as revisionist no.3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31.08.2015, the revisionists preferred an appeal being Civil Appeal No.17 of 2015 in the court of Additional District Judge, Kotdwar Garhwal, which was also dismissed by the appellate court vide its judgment and order dated 12.08.2016.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material brought on record.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionists would submit that the courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence available on record and have wrongly held that the marriage of the revisionist no.1 and the deceased was a void marriage and, on the said premise, has curtailed all her rights under the Succession Act. He would submit that even the revisionist no.1 was not a legally married wife of the deceased, but in the event also, she is also entitled for having a share in the post retrial dues of the deceased, as the revisionist no.1 and the deceased spent their whole life as husband and wife and a child namely Lakki was begotten from the said wedlock and the deceased also had also entered their names in the service records as legal heirs.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 would submit that the succession certificate has been rightly issued by the court below in her favour considering the fact that the revisionist no.1 is not a legally wedded wife of the deceas