Back
1998 Supreme(MP) 416
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
S. P. SRIVASTAVA
MUNNI DEVI - Appellant
Versus
ANGURI DEVI - Respondents
M. A. 220 Of 1997
Decided On : 05/09/1998
V.K.BHARDVAJ
A presumption of marriage arises from long cohabitation, habit and repute, and the birth of children, and this presumption is further strengthened by the husband's own admissions.
Headnote:
SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE - REVOCATION - MARRIAGE - PRESUMPTION - LEGITIMACY - HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 - SECTIONS 8, 372, 383 - EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - SECTION 50 - Where a marriage in fact is established there would be a presumption of a marriage in law. However, where the parties consistently, continuously and openly lived as husband and wife, cohabited together had five children and were regarded and recognised by friends and relations as husband and wife and enjoyed such a repute in general public, sufficient ground is made out for raising a presumption about the existence of a marriage and such a marriage in law creates the same rights and obligations on the parties as originate and flow from establishing a marriage in fact. The presumption of marriage on account of long cohabitation with habit and repute of that particular status which flows from a lawful marriage is further strengthened, in case the evidence on the record indicates that such union gave birth to children as there is a presumption in regard to the legitimacy of such children. The presumption of legitimacy necessarily involves that the union which gave birth to such children was lawful. The presumption in favour of a marriage as indicated above cannot be rebutted in case the husband himself admits the marriage and such an admission has to be accepted as conclusive especially in the absence of any material to indicate that the admission had been obtained in a manner not recognised by law.
Fact of the Case:
Hari Shankar, a police officer, died in harness leaving behind his wife, Munni, and five children. Munni applied for a succession certificate under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which was granted by the trial court. However, Hari Shankar's mother, Anguri Devi, filed an application under Section 383 of the Act seeking revocation of the succession certificate on the ground that Munni was not Hari Shankar's wife and that the children were not his legitimate heirs. The trial court revoked the succession certificate and Anguri Devi filed an appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the trial court erred in revoking the succession certificate granted to Munni. The court found that there was ample evidence to establish that Munni and Hari Shankar were married and that the children were their legitimate heirs. The court also held that Anguri Devi's application for revocation of the succession certificate was defective as it did not include her as a member of the family or near relative of the deceased.
Issues: 1. Whether Munni was the legally wedded wife of Hari Shankar? 2. Whether the children born to Munni were the legitimate heirs of Hari Shankar? 3. Whether Anguri Devi's application for revocation of the succession certificate was defective?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that there was a presumption of marriage between Munni and Hari Shankar based on their long cohabitation, habit and repute, and the birth of five children. This presumption was further strengthened by Hari Shankar's own admissions that Munni was his wife. 2. The court held that the children born to Munni were the legitimate heirs of Hari Shankar as there was a presumption of legitimacy in such cases. 3. The court held that Anguri Devi's application for revocation of the succession certificate was defective as it did not include her as a member of the family or near relative of the deceased.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the trial court revoking the succession certificate granted to Munni, and directed the trial court to prepare a fresh succession certificate indicating that Anguri Devi was also entitled to a 1/5th share in the property left by Hari Shankar.
( 1 ) FEELING aggrieved by an order under S. 383 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on the application filed by the contesting respondent, the mother of the deceased Hari Shankar, revoking the grant of succession certificate issued in their favour vide the order dated 7-7-1989, passed in case No. 23 of 1989, the present appellants who had claimed the succession certificate in the aforesaid case No. 23 of 1989, have now approached this Court seeking the reversal of the impugned order and the restoration of the earlier order dated 7-7-1989.
( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel representing the contesting respondent, and have carefully perused the record.
( 3 ) THE relevant facts as they emerge from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence brought on record lie in a narrow compass. Hari Shankar, who was born on 1-1-1951, was selected and appointed on the post of Aarakshak in the State Police Department on 4-4-1980. At the time of his appointment in the State Police Department, Hari Shankar was required to furnish various informations in a prescribed form which was submitted to the State Police Department on 4-4-1980. In his aforesaid statement while supplying the names of his family members, Hari Shankar had disclosed that Munni Devi/bai (hereinafter referred to as Munni), the present appellant No. 1, was his wife. At the instance of Hari Shankar, in his service book, a note was made that his heir would be his wife, Smt. Munni.
( 4 ) ON 21-7-1985, the aforesaid Hari Shankar had also submitted a nomination for the release of the benefits under the Madhya Pradesh Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme in the event of his death nominating Munni, his wife and Avadh Behari, his son whose age was disclosed to be only 4 month as his nominees to the extent of 50% each. In this nomination, Hari Shankar had clearly indicated that Munni was his wife. Even in the nomination form for D. C. R. G. , Hari Shankar had nominated Munni clearly describing the relationship between them to be husband and wife. This nomination form was signed in the presence of two witnesses.
( 5 ) IT may be noticed that in the Madhya Pradesh Police Service Roll which was prepared under Article 886 of the Civil Service Regulations and was prepared on 4-4-1980, Hari Shankar had disclosed Munni to be his wife and his heir and it was on the basis of his declaration that Munni was shown to be his heir in his service book.
( 6 ) MUNNI, the appellant No. 1 was born on 1-3-1953, and was two years younger to the aforesaid Hari Shankar. She was selected for the training course of Nurses in the year 1974, and after completing the training; she was granted appointment on the post of staff nurse in the year 1978. The entries made in her service book maintained by the State Department indicate that she had disclosed her relationship with Hari Shankar to be that of wife and husband. A copy of the service book (Ex. N. A. 34) prepared on 7-4-1984, which has been brought on record indicates the above.
( 7 ) HOWEVER, in the proforma which has been filed as Ex. N. A. 8 which does not appear to have been signed by Munni indicates that the name of husband of Munni was Jagadish Prasad Saxena. The document, Ex. N. A. 34, however, has been signed by Munni and countersigned by Zilla Parivar Kalyan Avam Swasth Adhikari (District Family Welfare and Health Officer), Guna, and is dated 25-4-1984 whereas the unsigned proforma is dated 7-4-1984.
( 8 ) HARI Shankar was murdered on 2-10-1988. Thereafter, the present appellants initiated proceedings under Section 372 of the Act, praying for the grant of succession certificate in their favour for the entire amount left behind by the deceased, Hari Shankar to which he was entitled towards service benefits and the other amounts deposited by him while he was in service including the interest which had accrued thereon. The application for
