Back
2018 Supreme(Tri) 205
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
Smt. Dipali Hrishidas W/o Late Narayan Hrishidas – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Belash Mani Hrishidas W/o Late Narayan Hrishidas – Respondent
MFA No. 1 of 2016
Decided On : 23-07-2018
For the Appellant : Mr. B. Pal.
For the Respondent: Mr. N. Majumder.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of legal heirs entitled to the assets of a deceased person and the validity of marriages under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Headnote:
Indian Succession Act - Appeal from order under Section 384 - Section 372, Section 387, Section 5 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of the succession certificate, the legal heirs entitled to the debts and securities left by the deceased, and the validity of marriages under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the entitlement to the debts and securities of a deceased person. The trial court held the respondent as the legally married wife and daughter of the deceased, thereby entitled to a share of the assets.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent and her daughter were entitled to a share of the debts and securities left by the deceased, and directed the issuance of the succession certificate. The court also held that the second wife of the deceased could not claim any benefit due to the voidable nature of her marriage.
Issues: The key issues included determining the legal heirs entitled to the deceased's assets and the validity of marriages under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence presented, including birth certificates and survival certificates, to establish the legal heirs. It also applied Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to determine the validity of marriages and the entitlement to benefits.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the order of the trial court was interfered with and modified.
1. Heard Mr. B. Pal, learned counsel appearing on instruction of Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 and there is no representation from the substituted respondents No. 3(i) & 3(ii) despite proper notice, when the matter is called out.
2. This is an appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act from the order dated 11.07.2016 delivered in Misc. (Succ.) 4 of 2015 by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala.
3. One Narayan Hrishidas died intestate on 08.02.2014. The respondents No. 1 & 2 herein along with the respondent No. 3 instituted an application under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of the succession certificate in respect of the debt and securities of the deceased person. When the public notice was published in a newspaper called Tripura Darpan, the appellants No. 1, 2, 3 & 4 filed an application for their impleadment claiming that Dipali Hrishi Das was the wife of Narayan Hrishi Das whereas the appellants No. 2, 3 and 4 are the sons and daughters of Narayan Hrishi Das. The court for purpose of inquiry impleaded them. But after recording the evidence, by the order dated 11.07.2016 the trial court held that the respondent No. 1 (Belashmani Hrishidas) is the legally married wife of Narayan Hrishidas, since deceased and the respondent No. 2 is their daughter born in their wedlock. In that premises, and on finding that Narayan Hrishidas had nominated Belashmani Hrishidas as his wife, the appellants, the opposite parties in the proceeding being Misc. (Succ.) 4 of 2015 were declared by the said order dated 11.07.2016 that they are not entitled to get any benefit from the debts and securities including pensionary benefits accrued for death of Narayan Hrishidas. From the record, it can be gathered that Narayan Hrishidas was a Government employee (Exbt.4). The trial court has observed as under:
“Admittedly, the petitioner nos.1 and 2 and OP No. 1 are the actual legal heirs of deceased Narayan Hrishidas. We are, however, not in a position to declare the shares of the parties in the debts left by the deceased being barred vide Section-387 of the Act of 1925. But as the deceased left behind only three numbers of survivors as per first Survival Certificate, dated 04.09.2014, giving priority to that documents along with Exbt.8, so they are entitled to get equal share of the service benefits of the deceased as per common parlance. In comparative study of the documents of the contesting parties the documents furnished by op nos. 2 to 5 are not so weighty in comparison to documents furnished by the petitioners.”
4. Having observed thus, it has been held that Belashmani Hrishidas is the legally married wife of deceased Narayan Hrishidas. Finally, on the basis of the documents so produced in the evidence, it has been held that the respondent No. 1 Belashmani Hrishidas, the respondent No. 2 Soma Hrishidas and Suradhani Hrishidas since deceased (the respondent No. 3) are entitled to get 1/3rd share each of debts and securities left by the deceased amounting to Rs. 6,80,577/- (Rs. six lakh eighty thousand five hundred seventy seven). It has been directed to issue the succession certificate following the due process of law.
5. Mr. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the said judgment suffers from the complete non-appreciation of evidence recorded by the court below which passed the order dated 11.07.2016. Mr. Pal, learned counsel has demonstrated from the records that the birth certificates of Nayan Hrishidas, Ruma Hrishidas and Rakhal Hrishidas as filed by the impleaded opposite parties, the appellants herein. It is apparent that in those birth certificates, those impleaded opposite parties namely Nayan Hrishidas, Ruma Hrishidas and Rakhal Hrishidas are shown as the sons and daughter of Narayan Hrishidas and there is no challenge against tho
