Smti. Lalchhuanawmi Tochhawng vs . Smti. Balbina Mary Tanglieh
2022 Latest Caselaw 72 Meg

     Serial No. 1
     Regular List

                         HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
                             AT SHILLONG

CRP. No. 36 of 2019
                                    Date of Hearing: 10.03.2022
                                    Date of Judgment: 14.03.2022
____________________________________________________________

Smti. Lalchhuanawmi Tochhawng                 Vs.   Smti. Balbina Mary Tanglieh
                                                    & Ors.


Coram:
         Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.S.Thangkhiew, Judge.

Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) :             Ms. L.Khiangte, Adv.

For the Respondent(s)               :         Mr. S.P.Mahanta, Sr. Adv. with

Mr. M.Lyngdoh, Adv. for R 1.

Mr. H.Abraham, GA for R 2 & 3.

i)       Whether approved for reporting in                      Yes/No
         Law journals etc:

ii)  Whether approved for publication         Yes/No
     in press:

____________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

1. The brief facts of this case is that the petitioner claiming to be the wife

of one (L) Vanlalruata Zahau had applied for a Succession Certificate before

the Court of the Judge, District Council Court, Shillong which was granted

to her. However, it appears when the petitioner approached the concerned

authorities for release of the pension benefits of her deceased husband, she

came to learn that the respondent No.1 had already obtained a Succession

Certificate and had also received the pensionary benefits of the deceased.

Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had filed a revocation application for

cancellation of the Succession Certificate which had been granted to the

respondent No.1. The Judge, District Council Court after hearing both the

parties and examining the evidence led through their respective witnesses,

then by the impugned judgment and order dated 27th April, 2018, rejected

the prayer of the petitioner by holding that the respondent No.1 was able to

prove her case beyond reasonable doubt that she was the rightful wife of the

deceased. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before this Court by way

of this revision application.

2. It is noted and has also been pointed out by the learned Sr. counsel for

the respondents that instead of an appeal being preferred under Section 384

of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which provides for appeals against an

order granting, refusing or revoking a certificate, the petitioner has

approached this Court under Rule 6 of the High Court of Meghalaya

(Jurisdiction over District Council Courts) Order, 2014. On this ground alone

this petition could have been returned to the petitioner but however for the

ends of justice, this revision application is being taken up and treated as an

appeal which has been preferred under Section 384 of the Indian Succession

Act.

3. I have heard learned counsel, Ms. L.Khiangte for the petitioner and

Mr. S.P.Mahanta, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. M.Lyngdoh, on behalf

of the respondent No.1.

4. The point in controversy is that both the petitioner and the respondent

No.1 claim to be the rightful wife of the deceased employee namely,

Vanlalruata Zahau who was serving in the Police Department of the Govt.

of Meghalaya. In the application for revocation, the petitioner had alleged

that the respondent No.1 had fraudulently obtained the Succession

Certificate by concealing material facts. In the proceedings before the

District Council Court, the learned Judge had framed six issues which are as

follows:

1. Who is the wife of the deceased?

2. Whether the Petitioner had obtained a No Objection Certificate

from the nearest relative of the deceased.

3. Whether the Petitioner had obtained a Succession Certificate from

this Court? If so, whether the said Certificate was obtained

fraudulently?

4. Who is legally entitled to obtain a Succession Certificate?

5. With whom did the deceased lived and cohabited together till his

death?

6. To what reliefs are the parties entitled to?

5. The most important issue to the mind of this Court is the first issue i.e.

"Who is the wife of the deceased." On this issue, the petitioner had

examined herself and another witness who is stated to be a close friend of

the deceased and they were shown as D.W.1 and D.W.2. The respondent

No.1 also examined herself and the sister of the deceased and they were

shown as P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively. The learned Judge, District Council

Court dwelt at length and discussed the evidence that had been tendered by

the witnesses and came to the conclusive finding that the respondent No.1

was the wife of the deceased thereby settling the issue. The relevant portion

of the judgment is reproduced herein below:

"Let me now discuss the above issues one after another. Let me discuss first Issue No.1 which reads as under: "Who is the wife of the deceased?"

The Petitioner has in para 2 of her petition stated as under: "That your Petitioner is the wife of (L) Shri. Vanlal Ruata who died intestate on 14.04.2009 due to his sickness at Civil Hospital, Shillong."

The Objector also has in para 2 of her revocation petition stated as under: "That the Petitioner is the lawful wife of (L) Shri. Vanlalruata Zahau who died on 14.04.2009....."

Before giving my opinion, let me discuss this particular issue with the help of the evidence available on records.

The Petitioner when she examined herself as P.W. 1 has in her examination-in-chief deposed as under: "I got married to the deceased sometimes in the month of December, the year of which I could not remember it is before the year 2002 ...... After I got married to my deceased husband, I lived and cohabited together as wife and husband with my deceased husband at Laitumkhrah, the place where I am staying till date..... Out of my wedlock with my deceased husband, one son was born. My said son was born on 30th August, 2003 at Ganesh Das Hospital whose name is Master Symond Kyrshan Lalmalsawma Tanglieh. Ext.1 is the Birth Certificate....... During his life time, my deceased husband was working in the Police Department, in the Traffic Branch in the capacity as a constable..... My deceased husband expired on 14th April, 2009 in Civil Hospital, Shillong. The Original of the Death Certificate is not with me and I have with me only a photo copy of the same. Paper Mark-1 is the copy of the said Death Certificate...... I have got proof from the locality that I am residing at Laitumkhrah issued to me by the Dorbar Dong Lumsohra. Ext.2 is the said Certificate."

The statement of the Petitioner (P.W.1) as above has also been corroborated by P.W.2 who is the own sister of the deceased, who in her examination-in-chief deposed as under: "The Petitioner is the wife of my deceased brother and out of her wedlock with my deceased brother, the Petitioner has got one son ........ The name of the son of the Petitioner is Master Simon Kyrshan Lalmalsawma Tanglieh."

The statement of P.W.2 as above has further been confirmed by her in her cross-examination who in her cross-examination stated as under: "My deceased

brother got married to the Petitioner in the year 2002..... They got married in a rented house at Nongrim Hills. But I do not know in which Church..... My deceased brother lived and cohabited together with the Petitioner till my brother's death at Rynjah."

The examination-in-chief of P.W.1 has not been able to challenge at the time of her cross-examination.

The Opp. Party when she examined herself as D.W.1 has in her examination-in-chief stated as under: "The name of my husband is (L) Shri. Vanlalruta Zahau...... My husband died on 14th April, 2009. During his life time my husband was working as a Police in the Meghalaya Police in the capacity as A/B Constable."

Whereas in her cross-examination, the Opp. Party (D.W.1) stated as under: "I have no documents to show that the deceased, (L) Shri Vanlalruta Zahau was my husband...... It is a fact that I am drawing a family pension in respect of my deceased husband, (L) Shri. Vanlal Hluna, Ex-UBC/1228...... It is a fact that my husband was (L) Shri. Vanlal Hluna..... It is a fact that I am drawing a family pension of my deceased husband, (L) Shri Vanlal Hluna till date."

The statement of the Opp. Party (D.W.1) as reproduced above is contradictory. In the in-chief, the Opp. Party (D.W.1) stated that her husband was (L) Shri Vanlalruta Zahau, whereas in her cross-examination she stated that her husband was (L) Shri Vanlal Hluna whom she is drawing the family pension of her deceased husband, (L) Shri. Vanlal Hluna till date. Therefore, it is very difficult on my part to rely on such contradictory statements.

D.W.2 (Shri. John Lalremruata Sailo) has in his examination-in-chief deposed as under: "I know the Objector who is the wife of my friend..... The name of my friend is (L) Shri. Vanlal Ruata."

In his cross-examination, D.W.2 stated as under: "The Opposite Party has got only one husband whose name is (L) Shri. Vanlal Rauta." Whereas in the later part of his cross-examination, the said D.W.2 contradicted as under: "The first husband of the Opposite Party is known by the name of Vanlal Hluna..... I know that UBC/1228 Constable namely Vanlal Hluna was the first husband of the Opposite Party."

Further, in the later part of his cross-examination, D.W.2 admitted as under: "I know that the Opposite Party used to draw the family pension of her late

husband (L) Shri. Vanlal Hluna vide P.PO/MG/SF/15429."

From the statements of both the witnesses (D.Ws) as reproduced above, it revealed that the Opp. Party/Objector is the wife of (L) Shri. Vanlal Hluna whom she is drawing the family pension left behind by him till date.

Whereas the claim of the Petitioner to be the wife of the deceased (L) Shri. Vanlal Ruata has also been supported by the own sister of the deceased who stated in her cross-examination that her deceased brother lived and cohabited together with the Petitioner till his death.

Both parties claimed that the deceased, (L) Shri. Vanlal Ruata was their husband. However on weighing the claims of these two ladies as per the evidence available on record, I found that the claim of the Petitioner that the deceased, (L) Shri Vanlal Ruata was her husband carries more weight as her claim was supported by the own sister of the deceased as compared to that of the Opp. Party who admitted that her husband was (L) Shri. Vanlal Hluna whom she is drawing the family pension left behind by him till date.

Therefore, in view of my above observations and findings, I find and hold that the Petitioner is the wife of the deceased and Issue No. 1 is hereby answered accordingly".

6. The learned Judge in coming to this finding on Issue No.1 had

weighed the evidence tendered by the parties carefully and it cannot be

inferred or discerned that there was any error in the appreciation of the

evidence. This Court has examined the records especially the depositions of

the witnesses and is in full agreement with the findings of the learned Judge,

District Council Court on Issue No.1. With regard to Issue No.2 i.e. the

issuance of No Objection Certificate by the sister of the deceased in favour

of the respondent No.1, the same was corroborated and this fact was also

proven. On Issue No.3 as to whether the Succession Certificate had been

obtained by the respondent No.1 fraudulently, from the evidence and the

facts available, the learned Judge, District Council Court had come to the

finding that, as the sister of the deceased who had given the no objection was

the sole living relative, it could not be said that the Certificate was obtained

in a fraudulent manner. This finding being based on uncontroverted

evidence, the same is upheld by this Court.

7. On the other issues, Issue No. 5 appears to be of some importance, as

it seeks to establish as to whom the deceased lived and co-habited with till

his death. In the evidence led by the respondent No.1 and the sister of the

deceased, they had deposed that they had taken the deceased to the hospital

and looked after him till his death and further in cross examination, the sister

had stated that her brother co-habited together with the respondent No.1 at

Rynjah and that she was co-habiting with the deceased in the quarters. The

petitioner has also deposed in her examination in chief that she had taken the

deceased to the hospital and that on his death, his body was taken to her

house at Rynjah Police quarters. However, in her cross examination, the

petitioner revealed that her husband was one (L) Vanlal Hluna and that she

was drawing the family pension of the said deceased (L) Vanlal Hluna till

date. D.W.2 the friend of the said (L) Vanlalruata (the deceased) deposed

that the petitioner had taken the deceased to the hospital and that he had

borne the expenditure for the hospital charges as well as the funeral. In the

cross examination, the said D.W.2 stated that the petitioner has only one

husband i.e the deceased whereas, later in his cross examination,

contradicted himself by stating that the first husband of the petitioner was

(L) Vanlal Hluna and that he was aware that the petitioner was drawing the

family pension of (L) Vanlal Hluna. The evidence tendered by the petitioner

and D.W.2, (the friend) in view of the contradictions does not appear to be

reliable and as such the finding by the learned Judge, District Council Court

that the deceased had co-habited with the respondent No.1 relying on the

testimony of the sister of the deceased appears to be correct. The other issues

in view of the findings in the main issue i.e. Issue No.1 and Issue No.5 are

not necessary to be discussed as they are but minor issues which would

follow the findings in the main Issue No.1.

8. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the entire evidence at

hand and the facts and circumstances surrounding the entire case, it is seen

that the respondent No.1 has been able to establish that she is the rightful

wife of the deceased and as such entitled to family pension. The petitioner

on the other hand has failed to make out a case for interference with the

judgment and order dated 27th April 2018 of the learned Judge, District

Council Court passed in Succession Misc. Case No. 68 of 2009.

9. For the foregoing reasons, this Revision/Appeal is accordingly

dismissed and is disposed of.

10. Parties to bear their own cost.

11. Lower court records to be transmitted back immediately.

Judge

Meghalaya 14.03.2022 "Samantha PS"