MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.
Marcelia A. Sangma - Appellant
Versus
Bionecia Nongkhlaw - Respondent
FAO. No. 1/2014
Decided On : 17-09-2014
Succession Certificate - Disputed Marriage - Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 372, Section 383
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute between two women claiming to be the first wife of a deceased individual, with one obtaining a succession certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and the other filing for revocation under Section 383 of the same Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the previous order and remanded the case for a de novo decision, emphasizing the need for examination of witnesses and documentary evidence to resolve the disputed facts.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the marriage between the deceased individual and the appellant, with conflicting claims regarding the type and validity of the marriage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of parties succeeding based on their pleaded case, the need for examination of oral and documentary evidence, and the requirement for the trial court to frame issues and provide reasons for its findings.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded to the lower court for a fresh decision, with directions for the examination of evidence and framing of issues.
Judgment
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.1. Heard Mr. A.H. Hazarika, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. HL Shangreiso, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24-4-2013 passed in revocation case No. 12 of 2011 for revocation of succession certificate dated 1-11-2010 issued in Succession Case No. 61 of 2010 in favour of the appellant.
2. The present appellant, Smti. Marcelia A. Sangma, and the respondent, Smti. Bionecia Nongkhlaw, are claiming to be the first wife of (Late) Shri Joyraj M. Sangma, who was an employee of the State Bank of India and expired while in service on 23-9-2010.
3. The present appellant filed the Succession Case No. 61 of 2010 in the court of the Judicial Officer/Garo Hills Autonomous District Council, West Garo Hills, Tura, under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for issuing a succession certificate for the debts and securities of (Late) Shri Joyraj M. Sangma. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant married with (Late) Shri Joyraj M. Sangma, and 3(three) children namely., (1) Miss Noamchi A. Sangma (Daughter), Miss Dimchi A. Sangma (Daughter) and Miss Tracy A. Sangma (Daughter) were born to the present appellant by her husband (Late) Shri Joyraj M. Sangma. It is also stated in the said application for succession certificate that (Late) Shri Joyraj M. Sangma, expired on 23-9-2010 at Tura, Chitotak Village. The learned Judicial Officer/Garo Hills Autonomous District Council, West Garo Hills, Tura issued the succession certificate dated 1-11-2010 for the debts and securities of the appellant amounting to Rs. 23,33,434/- in favour of the appellant.
4. The respondent after coming to know the succession certificate dated 1-11-2010 issued in favour of the appellant, filed the revocation petition under Section 383 of the India Succession Act, 1925 for revocation of the succession certificate dated 1-11-2010 issued in favour of the appellant in the court of the Additional District Commissioner, West Garo Hills, Tura, and the said revocation application was registered as revocation case No. 12 of 2011. In the said application, the respondent pleaded that the respondent married with (Late) Shri Joyraj M. Sangma in the Church as per the provisions of the Christian rites and rituals in the presence of relatives and friends of both the parties in Shillong on 29-6-1981 and 5(five) children were born. The respondent and (Late) Shri Joyraj M. Sangma, lived together as husband and wife in the house of the respondent in Shillong before their marriage was legally solemnized in the Church. (Late) Shri Joyraj M. Sangma, was transferred from Shillong and posted at State Bank of India, Baghmara Branch, South Garo Hills, Meghalaya in the year 1993, and the marriage between the respondent and her husband, (Late) Shri Joyraj M. Sangma, had not been dissolved or terminated. Therefore, the marriage of the respondent and her husband, (Late) Shri Joyraj M. Sangma, continued to remain intact till the death of (Late) Shri Joyraj M. Sangma, while in service in 23-9-2010. Respondent further pleaded in the said application that during the subsistence of the marriage of the respondent with (Late) Shri Joyraj M. Sangma, the appellant cannot marry (Late) Shri Joyraj M. Sangma, and if there be a relationship between the appellant and (Late) Shri Joyraj M. Sangma, that will be only an illicit relationship.
5. The appellant also filed the written statement/rejoinder in the said revocation case No. 12 of 2011, wherein the appellant categorically denied the averments of the respondent in the said revocation application. Mr. HL Shangreiso, learned counsel appearing for the respondent by drawing the attention of this Court to the copy of said written statement/rejoinder of the appellant, contended that there is no specific averment regarding the type of marriage of the appellant with (Late) Shri Joyraj M. Sangma, but in the application under Section
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.