Mostt. Sandhya Singh vs Meera Singh And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 4888 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                        Miscellaneous Appeal No.138 of 2017
     ======================================================

Mostt. Sandhya Singh Wife of Late Ram Kripal Singh, Resident of Village P.O.- Tengrahan, P.S.- Minapur, District- Muzaffarpur, Bihar.

... ... Appellant/s Versus

1. Meera Singh and Ors Wife of Sri Umesh Prasad Singh and Daughter of Late Ram Kripal Singh, Resident of Village- Dhanupura, P.O.- Kolwara, P.S.- Saraiya, District- Muzaffarpur, Bihar.

2. Kiran Singh, Wife of Raju Singh and daughter of Late Ram Kripal Singh, Resident of Village- Ghoghraha, P.O.- Rajarampur, P.S.- Saraiya, District- Muzaffarpur, Bihar.

3. Supriya Singh Wife of Bimlesh Kumar Singh and Daughter of Late Kripal Singh, Resident of Village- Dhanpura, P.O.- Kolwara, P.S.- Saraiya, District- Muzaffarpur, Bihar.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Krishna Kant Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY CAV JUDGMENT Date : 07-12-2022

The present appeal is directed against the order

dated 18.11.2016 passed in Succession Case No. 15 of 2006 by

the learned Sub-Judge-1st, Muzaffarpur by which the learned

Court was pleased to issue Succession Certificate in favour of

respondent Nos. 1 to 3 while the claim of the appellant was

rejected.

2. The matrix of the facts giving rise to the present

appeal is/are as follows :-

3. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 namely, Meera Singh,

Kiran Singh and Supriya Singh claiming themselves to be the Patna High Court MA No.138 of 2017 dt.07-12-2022

daughters of late Ram Kripal Singh filed Succession Case No.

15 of 2006 under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act

(henceforth for short 'the Act') for grant of Succession

Certificate to the deceased Ram Kripal Singh claiming

themselves to be his daughters with the further averment that

their mother, Parwati Devi already died prior to the death of

their father on 3.10.2005. It is to be noted that Ram Kripal

Singh died on 4.5.2006.

4. The appellant, Sandhya Singh preferred petition

in the said Succession Case No. 15 of 2006 for addition of her

name claiming herself to be the wife of late Ram Kripal Singh.

According to her, the marriage was solemnised with Ram Kripal

Singh at village-Kataiya, Gopalganj on 22.2.2006 and they were

living a happy conjugal life.

5. Subsequently, on 26.3. 2006, Ram Kripal Singh

fell ill and was treated at All India Institute of Medical Sciences,

New Delhi as also Janki Das Kapoor Memorial Hospital

Sonipat, Haryana where he breathe his last on 4.5. 2006.

6. In favour of their respective claims, the three

daughters put forward altogether seven witnesses which were as

follows :-

(i) A.W.-1, A.W.-2 and A.W.-3 were the three Patna High Court MA No.138 of 2017 dt.07-12-2022

sisters themselves namely, Meera Singh,

Kiran Singh and Supriya Singh and they

deposed that their mother died on 3.10.2005

whereafter they were taking care of late Ram

Kripal Singh on rotation basis. Subsequently,

he fell ill and breathe his last at Janki Das

Kapoor Memorial Hospital Sonipat, Haryana

on 4.5.2006. One of the three sisters was at

the bedside when he died whereafter the

dead body was handed over to them and

later mortal remains were consigned to

flames by them;

(ii) later, 'Shraddh' was performed by them.

It was their further contention that their

father, Ram Kripal Singh never married any

lady much less with Sandhya Devi as she

claimed;

(iii) A.W.-4, Ram Surat Singh was the own

brother of deceased, Ram Kripal Singh. He

deposed that his brother died at Sonipat

Hospital on 4.5.2006 while his wife Parwati

Devi died on 3.10.2005 and after the death of Patna High Court MA No.138 of 2017 dt.07-12-2022

Parwati Devi, the deceased never solemnized

any marriage with anyone. Thus, he denied

the second marriage of late Ram Kripal

Singh;

(iv) A.W.-5, Mohan Pathak is a formal

witness who identified the certificate granted

by the Circle Office, Meenapur (Exhibit-1);

(v) A.W.-6, Dhirendra Singh, is also a

villager who supported the case of the three

sisters stating that Ram Kripal Singh died on

4.5.2006 at Sonipat while his wife, Parwati

Devi died on 3.10.2005 and further, no

second marriage took place;

(vi) A.W.-7, Anjarul Haque is again a formal

witness who identified the certificate granted

by Dr. Nirmal Khandelwal, Janki Das

Kapoor Memorial Hospital, Sonipat,

Haryana(Exhibit-2 and 2/1). He also certified

the death certificate of deceased, Ram Kripal

Singh (Exhibit-3) and Parwati Devi (Exhibit-

3/1).

7. So far as the opposite party-appellant's case Patna High Court MA No.138 of 2017 dt.07-12-2022

is/was concerned, altogether eleven witnesses were examined

which included :-

(i) Op.W-1 Most. Sandhya Singh who

claimed to have married Ram Kripal Singh

on 22.2.2006 in village Kataiya after the

death of his first wife, Parwati Devi. Her

further statement was that Ram Kripal Singh

was not ill at the time of marriage and was

physically fit on 22.2.2006 when marriage

took place and fell ill in March, 2006

whereafter he was treated at Siwan, Delhi

and lastly at Sonipat, Haryana where he died

on 4.5.2006;

(ii) Op.W.-2, Ramanand Singh and Op.W.-3,

Ramadhar Singh are villagers who claimed

to have been present in the marriage between

Ram Kripal Singh and Sandhya Devi that

took place on 22.2.2006.

(iii) Op.W.- 4, Hari Shankar Singh, Op.W.-5,

Ram Bhushan Singh, Op.W.-6, Lal Babu

Singh, are also villagers and have also

supported the 22.2.2006 marriage version Patna High Court MA No.138 of 2017 dt.07-12-2022

with Ram Kripal Singh;

(iv) Op.W.-7, Ram Prit Tiwari claims himself

to be the 'Pandit' who solemnized the

marriage at Consolidation Office, Kataiya

while Op.W.-8 is Asharfi Sah, who claimed

to be the landlord of the Consolidation

Office, Kataiya and further supported the

case put forward by Sandhya Singh;

(v) Op.W.-9 is Devta Singh, father of

Sandhya Singh while Op.W.-10, Lakhan

Manjhi is an employee of Consolidation

Office, Kataiya and Op.W.-11, Ramadhir

Singh was mediator who negotiated the

marriage between Sandhya Singh and Ram

Kripal Singh.

8. The exhibits put forward by Sandhya Singh were

as follows :-

(i) Exhibit-A,- an application to the

Consolidation Office to unlock the room

where she was living with Ram Kripal

Singh;

(ii) Exhibit-A/1- was the signature of Lakhan Patna High Court MA No.138 of 2017 dt.07-12-2022

Manjhi in the said application;

(iii) Exhibit A/A- is the Letter No. 64 dated

14.8.2016 issued by the Consolidation

Office, Siwan to all claimants including

Sandhya Singh to bring Succession

Certificate while Exhibit-A/D is the Voter list

prepared on 6.8.2007.

9. The learned Court after going through the facts

of the case, the deposition of the respective parties as also the

documents/exhibits that were put forward by them came to the

conclusion that so far as the grant of Succession Certificate to

three daughters namely, Meera Singh, Kiran Singh and Supriya

Singh are concerned, there is no opposition from the opposite

party, Sandhya Singh and thus it is accepted fact that all three

applicants are daughters of the deceased, Ram Kripal Singh.

10. So far as the evidences that has been put

forward by the opposite party is concerned, there are

contradictions inasmuch as while some witnesses stated that the

marriage was solemnized at the Consolidation Office, the others

said that it happened at Kataiya Village and further none of the

family members/relatives of the deceased, Ram Kripal Singh

had deposed on behalf of the opposite party to support her Patna High Court MA No.138 of 2017 dt.07-12-2022

marriage with the deceased.

11. The learned Court also took note of the

documentary evidences put forward by Sandhya Singh and

recorded that :-

(i) there is no photograph to the marriage;

(ii) there is no service book of the deceased;

(iii) no family members had said that the

opposite party is the wife of Ram Kripal

Singh;

(iv) although, there is voter list but it is dated

6.8.2007 i.e. after the death of Ram Kripal

Singh on 4.5.2006.

12. The learned Court further took into account the

statement of Sandhya Singh that her photographs and articles

were stolen by son-in-law of Ram Kripal Singh but held that in

absence of any FIR to this effect, the same cannot be accepted.

13. The learned Court finally held that there is

strong objection on behalf of the applicants, three sisters about

the marriage of the opposite party-appellant, Sandhya Singh

with Ram Kripal Singh and there is absolutely no evidence on

behalf of her to support the case she has filed to prove the

marriage with deceased, Ram Kripal Singh. Patna High Court MA No.138 of 2017 dt.07-12-2022

14. Accordingly, the learned Court held that in view

of no objection for the issuance of Succession Certificate in

favour of all the three applicants , the same is granted while in

view of the facts that have been narrated in the aforesaid

paragraphs, the lady, Sandhya Singh is not entitled to get any

Succession Certificate.

15. Accordingly, the following order was passed by

the learned Court :

Under the above facts, circumtances and

keeping in view the evidence and discussions

made above, I find that there is no objection

to issue succession certificate in favour of all

three applicants. As such the succession

application is accepted. Office is directed to

issue succession Certificate in favour of

applicants namely, Meera Singh, Kiran

Singh and Supriya Singh on the condition of

filing on indomnity bond of Rs. Five lakh

with two sureties of like amount each.

16. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been

filed by the appellant, Sandhya Singh.

17. Heard counsel for the parties.

Patna High Court MA No.138 of 2017 dt.07-12-2022

18. Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey, learned counsel

representing the appellants submitted that although the learned

Court recorded that there is contradiction in the statements but

failed to take into account that in the absence of documentary

evidences, the oral evidences have to be taken note of. He

further submitted that the witnesses have supported the marriage

of Sandhya Singh with the deceased Ram Kripal Singh. He

further submitted that there was no contradiction in the

statement of the witnesses so far as the marriage place is

concerned, as the Consolidation Office is in the Kataiya Village.

19. His further contention was that she had fully

narrated the events from the illness of Ram Kripal Singh to his

death at Sonipat to prove that not only she was wife but she was

moving along with him and as such in the aforesaid

circumstances, the learned Court erred in not granting the

Succession Certificate in her favour.

20. Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, learned counsel for the

respondents on the other hand submit that the dates and events

that unfolded clearly show that the lady has been cropped up by

interested parties only to grab the properties of late Ram Kripal

Singh. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the

respondents that on 3.10.2005, the respondent's mother, Parwati Patna High Court MA No.138 of 2017 dt.07-12-2022

Devi died whereafter through rotation one or the other sister was

taking care of Ram Kripal Singh, their father.

21. Further, when he fell ill, one of her sister who

was residing at Sonipat (Haryana) took her to the said place

where he was undergoing his treatment and finally died in their

presence. Subsequently, the mortal remains of Ram Kripal

Singh was brought and consigned to flames whereafter

'Shraddh' was performed by the three sisters with the help of

their family members. The lady, Sandhya Singh was nowhere to

be seen.

22. The further contention of Mr. Krishna Kant

Singh is that immediately after the death of their mother, the

deceased Ram Kripal Singh fell ill and was undergoing

treatment and as such the claim of appellant that the marriage

took place on 22.2.2006 and the couple was leading a happy

conjugal life is a figment of imagination which is fit to be

rejected.

23. It was further submitted that in the present time,

it is hard to believe that the marriage took place without having

a single photograph to the ceremony and/or to the knowledge of

any of the family members of Ram Kripal Singh.

24. So far as the support to Sandhya Singh by the Patna High Court MA No.138 of 2017 dt.07-12-2022

employees of Consolidation Office is concerned, learned

counsel submitted that for oblique reason, the lady has been

propped up by the office staffs and as such, the claim put

forward by her is fit to be rejected. It was his last contention that

a single piece of paper, the voter list showing Sandhya Singh to

be the wife of Ram Kripal Singh is again fit to be rejected as the

same has been prepared in 2007 after the death of Ram Kripal

Singh and obviously with the help of the employees of the

Consolidation Office.

25. Having heard the rival submissions, this Court

is of the considered view that the three sisters as also the brother

of Ram Kripal Singh had denied the solemnization of any

marriage with any lady, much less with Sandhya Singh, it was

the duty on the part of the appellant to bring on record the

cogent facts/evidences in support of her case to prove that she

is/was legally wedded wife of late Ram Kripal Singh.

26. Having failed to do so, the learned Court was

perfectly justified in issuing the Succession Certificate to the

three daughters while denying the same to her. The appellant's

case is that she married Ram Kripal Singh on 22.2.2006 but

failed to bring on record any document/photograph of the said

ceremony.

Patna High Court MA No.138 of 2017 dt.07-12-2022

27. Further, she also failed to prove that she was

part and parcel of the events that unfolded after the death of

Ram Kripal Singh followed by his funeral and finally 'Shraddh'.

28. So far as the Voter list is concerned, it was

prepared in 2007, one year after the death of Ram Kripal Singh

and cannot be taken up in support of the case.

29. This Court does not find any error in the order

dated 18.11.2016 passed by learned learned Sub-Judge-1st,

Muzaffarpur in Succession Case No. 15 of 2006.

30. The M.A. No. 138 of 2017 fails and is

accordingly dismissed.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/Ajay-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                30.11.2022
Uploading Date          07/12/2022
Transmission Date       NA