A legally wedded wife does not automatically inherit debts and securities over a cohabiting partner; both parties may have valid claims.

JUDGMENT :

H.S. THANGKHIEW, J.

1. This Appeal has been filed under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, for setting aside and quashing the order dated 06.08.2021, passed by the learned Judge, District Council Court, in Succession Case No. 174 of 2012, granting a Succession Certificate in favour of the respondent No. 1, with regard to the debts and securities left behind by the appellant late husband namely Francis Wahlang.

2. The appellant is stated to be the legally wedded wife of (L) Francis Wahlang, who were married on 28.11.1983, under the Christian Marriage Act, but however, there were no children born out of the wedlock. On the death of (L) Francis Wahlang, the appellant had approached the office of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), where the deceased was working, to claim the debts and securities left behind by her late husband, and was instructed to obtain a Succession Certificate as there were other claimants. The appellant then came to learn that the respondent No. 1, had already obtained a Succession Certificate from the learned Court below vide order dated 06.12.2012, with regard to the debts and securities left behind by her deceased husband.

3. The appellant then applied for revocation of the Succession Certificate issued to the respondent No. 1, whereafter the Court below by order dated 17.05.2013, was pleased to stay the operation of the Succession Certificate issued to the respondent No. 1. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2, who claimed to be the sister of the deceased also filed an application for revocation of the Succession Certificate, on the ground that the same had been fraudulently obtained. The matter then proceeded for trial and issues were framed, witnesses examined, and hearing was concluded. Thereafter by order dated 06.08.2021, the revocation petition filed by the appellant was rejected and the Succession Certificate granted in favour of the respondent No. 1 vide order dated 06.12.2012, upheld.

4. Being aggrieved thereby the appellant has preferred the instant Appeal on and amongst others the following grounds.

a) That the learned Court below failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant was the legally wedded wife of the deceased (L) Francis Wahlang.

b) That the learned Court below erred in law in holding that despite the appellant being the legally wedded wife of the deceased, she was not entitled to the debts and securities.

c) That the learned Court below failed to appreciate the fact that she was still the legally wedded wife, even if the deceased may have cohabited with the respondent.

d) That as the deceased and the respondent No. 1 were not legally married, it is not the respondent No. 1 who shall be entitled to the debts and securities, but only the children of the respondent No. 1 would be entitled to share the same.

e) That the learned Court below failed to appreciate that since the appellant and the deceased are legally married, the debts and securities left behind by the deceased husband should be shared equally between the appellant and the children of the respondent No. 1.

5. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the respondent No. 2, through her counsel has submitted that she was not interested or inclined to contest the matter, and it was prayed that her name be struck off from the array of parties, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 30.08.2022.

6. It has been submitted by Mr. A.R. Passah, learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had established the fact before the Lower Court that she was the legally wedded wife, inasmuch as, the respondent herself had admitted the same in her evidence. A Marriage Certificate he submits existed which had been tendered in her evidence and marked as Papermark 2, and the marriage was corroborated by the other witnesses and by the findings of the Court below, that the appellant is the legally wedded wife. It is further submitted that despite the Court below, returning of finding that the appellant is the legally