10th March, 2025 (AK)

F.A. 96 of 2025 IA No: CAN 2 of 2025 Pushpa Halder @ Puspa Halder Vs.

Saikat Halder Mr. Malay Kr. Das Mr. Dibyajyoti Raha ...for the appellant.

Mr. Budhadeb Ghosal Mr. Lakshmi Kanta Pal ...for the respondent.

1. Affidavit-of-service filed in court today be kept on record.

2. By the impugned order (deemed decree), a succession certificate in respect of the estate of the deceased father of the respondent has been granted to the respondent, without citation/notice upon the appellant, who claims to be the second wife of the respondent’s father through a valid marriage, and upon dismissing her prayer for addition of party to the proceeding.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. The appellant contends that she contracted a valid marriage with the deceased, in respect of whose estate the impugned judgment has granted succession certificate in favour of the respondent, who is the step-son of the appellant, being the son of the deceased.

5. It is argued by the appellant that there is a subsisting suit seeking a declaration that the marriage of the appellant with the deceased person was a nullity in view of the same having been contracted during subsistence of the previous marriage of the appellant.

6. However, the marriage registration certificate of the appellant was subsequently corrected, since there was a bona fide error regarding the date of the same, and the marriage between the appellant and the deceased person took place only after severance of the previous marriage of the appellant by way of a divorce.

7. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent disputes such contentions and submits that the documents furnished by the appellant are not conclusive proof that there was a valid marriage between the appellant and the deceased father of the respondent.

8. As such, learned senior counsel seeks to justify the impugned order granting succession certificate to the respondent without impleading the appellant as a party thereto.

9. However, since a civil suit is pending at present challenging the validity of the marriage of the appellant with the deceased, we are of the opinion that a sufficient arguable case has been made out for hearing the present appeal on merits as to whether a cause of action was made out by the appellant for being impleaded before grant of the succession certificate and as to whether the grant of succession certificate in favour of the respondent exclusively was justified.

10. Accordingly, there shall be stay of operation of the impugned judgment and order (deemed decree) dated December 23, 2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court (District Delegate) at Asansol, District: Paschim Bardhaman in Succession Case no.50 of 2021 till disposal of the appeal.

11. CAN 2 of 2025 is, accordingly, allowed on contest without costs.

12. In view of appearance of the sole respondent through his learned Advocate, service of notice of the appeal on the respondent is dispensed with.

13. The trial court records shall be brought by special messenger at the cost of the appellant, to be deposited within a week from date.

14. The appellant shall prepare and file the requisite number of paper books within eight weeks from the date of service of notice of arrival of the trial court records on the learned Advocate for the appellant.

15. Liberty to the parties to mention the appeal for inclusion in the list as and when the same is ready for hearing.

16. It is made clear that this court has not entered into the merits of the contentions of the parties conclusively and has made the above observations only in the context of ascertaining whether there is a prima facie case for hearing of the present appeal and for grant of ad interim stay.

17. In any event, the findings of a court in a succession proceeding cannot be conclusive insofar as the civil court is concerned.

18. Hence, it is made clear that none of the above observations shall be conclusive or binding on the civil court where the title su