Mrs. Anima Hazarika, J.— Challenge in this appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is made against the judgment and order dated 4-3-2002 passed by the learned District Judge. Hailakandi, in Misc., (Succession) Case No. 97/99 titled as (Mustt, Ayesha and 3 others v. Mustt. Rebun Nessa and 2 others), whereby and whereunder the learned District Judge , Hailakandi, directed to issue the succession certificate in favour of the first wife (Mustt. Bibi Ayesha) and her three daughters including the opposite party Nos.2 & 3 depriving the second wife, the appellant herein, holding that she is the divorcee of the deceased Intaj Ali Laskar, therefore, not entitled to get the share in the debts and securities left by the deceased husband.

2. Heard Mr. MH Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. AM Mazumdar, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. FKR Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The following facts would emerge from the facts pleaded by the contesting parties:

The petitioners, namely Bibi Ayesha, Khairun Nessa, Hayatun Nessa and Nur Khatun have filed a petition for grant of succession certificate in respect of debts and securities of the deceased Intaj Ali Laskar. In the said petition, appellant herein alongwith her son and daughter have been arrayed as opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3 contending, inter alia, that the opposite party No.1 Mustt, Rebun Nessa is the second wife of the deceased intaj Ali Laskar and opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 are son and daughter of the deceased through the opposite party No. 1 who was divorced by the deceased and as a consequence she has left the house of the deceased and is therefore not entitled to get share of debt and securities left by the deceased Intaj Ali Laskar.

4. The learned District Judge took cognizance of the case and issued summons on the opposite parties. Accordingly, the opposite party No.1 entered appearance by filing objection contending inter alia that Mustt. Bibi Ayesha is the first wife of deceased Intaj Ali Laskar and the petitioner Nos.2, 3 & 4 are the daughters of the deceased through Ayesha Bibi. But denied to have divorced her by the deceased. On the contrary she pleaded that the first wife Bibi Ayesha is the divorcee of the deceased and the divorce was pronounced due to quarrel with her children and after divorce, Bibi Ayesha left her husband’s house along with her daughter, the petitioner No. 4 to her parental house and lived there since then. But after the demise of Intaj Ali Laskar she came to the house of the husband and filed the petition seeking issuance of succession certificate to which she is not entitled.

5. From the pleadings of the parties the core question required to be answered by the learned District Judge, Hailakandi was, as to whether the first wife, Bibi Ayesha was divorced by her husband or the second wife Rebun Nessa was divorced by her husband Intaj Ali Laskar since deceased.

6. To substantiate the claim of the parties the opposite parties/appellants including proforma respondent Nos. 5 & 6 herein have examined four witnesses including Rebum Nessa, whereas the respondent Nos. 1 to 4/petitioners have examined three witnesses including Bibi Ayesha.

7. The learned District Judge on consideration of materials on record and evidence led by the respondent No. 1 as PW 1 including PW2 neighbour, PW3 a co-villager. PW4 elder brother of the deceased has held that second wife was divorced by the deceased in presence of PW2, PW3 and PW4 thereby discarding the evidence led by the second wife holding that second wife was divorced by the deceased, therefore, not entitled to get the share in the debts and securities left by the deceased Intaj Ali Laskar. Hence the present appeal.

8. Mr. Rajbarbhuiyan learned counsel appearing for the second wife, appellant has drawn the attention of the Court to the pleadings of the parties, more particularly the evidence of PWs upon which the learned District Judge