Judgment:
Pradeep Kumar, J.
1. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3.8.2005 passed by Sri Ananat Vijay Singh, District Judge, Dumka in Succession Certificate Case No. 02 of 2001/Title Suit No. 01 of 2002.
2. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the trial court while passing the judgment, has failed to consider all the evidences adduced by the parties and without considering their cases and documents he has passed the impugned judgment, which is bad in law and only fit to be set aside.
3. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the documents and witnesses produced by the respondent, Mery Murmu beyond reasonable doubt and on the basis of the document of the petitioner-appellant, Most. Rajani Hembram a case of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka, which was registered as Cr. Misc. Case No. 43/1976 in which there was a clear finding that she is not the wife of deceased, Sanatan Tudu, which was confirmed by the Session Judge, Dumka in Cr. Rev. No. 253/77/48/79, hence the learned trial court relying on the evidence and document of the objector rightly came to a finding that only the objector, Mery Murmu is the legally wedded wife and entitled to get succession certificate.
4. After hearing both the parties and going through the record, I find that the appellant, Most. Rajani Hembram filed an application before the District Judge, Dumka for getting a succession certificate with regard to the gratuity, provident fund and other dues belonging to the deceased, late Sanatan Tudu, who was earlier working as a Headmaster in Primary School Jamkanali, Block Amrapara, District Pakur. The applicant-appellant, Most. Rajani Hembrom claimed that she is the legally wedded wife of deceased, late Sanatan Tudu, who died on 18.1.2001 at village Dhobna, P.S. Masalia. She gave the details of the due chart, which are as under and which are lying in the office of D.S.E., Pakur:
1. Group Bima : 55,000/-2. E/L : 86,000/-3. P.F. : 88,000/-4. Gratuity : 80,000/---------------Rs. 3,09,000/- (approximately)
She also stated that she has also got a son, namely, Albind Tudu aged about 25 years and Most.Rajani Hembram aged about 45 years widow of late Sanatan Tudu, both are residents of Golbandha, P.S. Masalai, District Dumka.
5. The aforesaid succession case, which was registered as Succession Certificate Case No. 2 of 2001. Subsequently, the notices were issued on the opposite party-respondent, Mery Murmu and she appeared in the case and filed an objection that Most. Rajani Hembram is not the legally wedded wife of late Sanatan Tudu and she is only legally wedded wife of late Sanatan Tudu. The objector-respondent, Meri Murmu, in her objection petition dated 1.4.2002, stated that the said Most. Rajani Hembrom is an impostor and late Sanatan Tudu never married her. She further stated that in the year 1976, the said Most. Rajani Hembrom had claimed herself to be Maloti Hembrom and she had field a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka against the said Sanatan Tudu during her lifetime claiming herself to be the wife of late Sanatan Tudu and having a son from him and prayed for grant of monthly allowance of Rs. 400/- which was registered as Cr. Misc. Case No. 43 of 1976 and learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after recording the evidences gave a finding that the said Maloti Hembrom is not the legally married wife of late Sanatan Tudu nor her son was born from him and dismissed the said case. Thereafter, Maloti Hembrom had filed a Criminal revision being Cr. Rev. No. 253/77/48/79 before the court of Sessions Judge, Dumka, which was subsequently transferred to the court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka and the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge vide its judgment/order dated 1.2.1980 dismissed the revision application.
6. The objector-respondent also stated that she was married with the said late Sanatan Tudu and the marriage was registered on 21.12.1990 before the Special Marriage Officer, Pakur and out of said wedlock she has got a son, namely, Sandeep Kumar Tudu, who is aged about 10 years. The said Sandeep Kumar Tudu was a school teacher and she also lived with him.
7. A rejoinder was also filed by the appellant to the objection. On the basis of said pleading the issues were framed and witnesses were examined. The applicant-appellant here examined 6 witnesses in the trial court:
P.W. No. 1 Sanat Murmu. P.W. No. 2, Surju Tudu. P.W. No. 3, Babulal Tudu. P.W.4, Shishu Soren. P.W. No. 5, Motilal Soren and P.W. No. 6, Rajani Hembrom.
8. The objector also examined 5 witnesses:
O.W. No. 1, Meri Murmu. O.W. No. 2, Sanatan Hansda. O.W. No. 3, Debi Hembrom. O.W. No. 4, Purmila Tudu and O.W. No. 5 Manos Soen, who is brother-in-law of deceased, Sanatan Tudu.
9. From the issue Nos. 1 & 2, it appears that issue No. 1 is as to whether the petitioner-appellant, Rajani Hembrom is the legally married wife of late Sanatan Tudu or is the objector-respondent, Merry Murmu is legally married wife of late Sanatan Tudu? And Issue No. 2 is the boy, namely, Albind Tudu son of late Sanatan Tudu from petitioner-appellant or is Sandip Kumar Tudu is the son of late Sanatan Tudu from objector-respondent Merry Murmu were decided by the trial court jointly and in paras 15 to 25 the trial court gave a finding against the appellant-petitioner and in favour of objector-respondent.
10. In order to evaluate the finding with regard to issue Nos. 1 & 2, since the appellant has stated that her witnesses and documents were not examined properly. Let me first discuss the evidence brought by the appellant in court, it is important to note that the appellant has examined six witnesses in court. P.W. No. 1, Sanat Murmu he claimed that he is the Pradahan of Mouza Dhobna. He further stated that the appellant,Rajani Hembrom is the legally wedded wife of late Sanatan Tudu, who was a teacher and they have got a son, namely, Albind Tudu, hence Most. Rajani Hembrom is the real authority of the property.
In his cross-examination, he stated that although in the year 1977 the S.D.O appointed him as 'Gram Pradhan', but he has got no order of appointment. He also admitted that Most. Rajani Hembrom is Hindu and she is not Christian and he had not seen the marriage of Most. Rajani Hembrom with late Sanatan Tudu.
11. P.W. No. 2, Surju Tudu also claimed that he is a permanent resident of village Dhobna and Most. Rajani Hembrom is the legally wedded wife of late Sanatan Tudu and after death of Sanatan Tudu she is entitled to get the property of late Sanatan Tudu. He also stated that he knows Most. Rajani Hembrom and her family, but failed to say in cross-examination that how many brothers and sisters of Most. Rajani Hembrom are present. He also admitted that Most. Rajani Hembrom is a Hindu Santhal. He also admitted that he cannot say as to whether Most. Rajani Hembrom was married according to Santhal Rites or according to Christian Rites. He admitted that late Sanatan Tudu has one sister, who is alive. He also admitted that when Sanatan Tudu died then he was worried according to the Christian Rites and no 'saradh' ceremony was held as per the Hindu Rites.
12. P.W. No. 3, Babulal Tudu also claimed that petitioner-appellant, Most. Rajani Hembrom is the legally wedded wife of late Sanatan Tudu and after the death of Sanatan Tudu she is looking after the property of late Sanatan Tudu. In his cross-examination, he stated that he does not know the name of brothers and sisters of Most.Rajani Hembrom. He further stated that Most. Rajani Hembrom was married with Sanatan Tudu 30-35 years before in Church and their names were entered in the register as maintained in the Church.
13. P.W.4, Shishu Soren stated that Most. Rajani Hembrom is the legally married wife of late Sanatan Tudu and she has got a son, namely, Albind Tudu from late Sanatan Tudu and she is rightful owner of the properties of late Sanatan Tudu, but he stated in his cross-examination that he had not seen the marriage between the Most. Rajanni Hembrom and late Sanatan Tudu. The marriage took place about 31-32 years back at Dhobna Mission Church. He also stated that sister of late Sanatan Tudu was alive and she was present in the marriage. He further stated that Sanatan Tudu died about 13 years back.
14. P.W. No. 5, Motilal Soren also claimed that Most. Rajani Hembrom is the legally married wife of late Sanatan Tudu and she has got a son, namely, Albind Tudu from him, hence she is rightful owner of his properties. He also stated that Most. Rajani Hembrom was married about 30-32 years back with late Sanatan Tudu, who was a Christian and Most.Rajani Hembrom is a Hindu, but her marriage took place at Dhobna Mission Church. He had not attended the said marriage.
15. Thus, from the evidences of the appellant, Most. Rajani Hembrom herself, who also claimed to be the legally married wife of late Sanatan Tudu and she has got a son, Albind Tudu from him. She further stated that her name was entered in the ration card and in C.O's. report. She also filed a document that her son, Albind Tudu and father's name was also entered in the Bihar School Examination Board as late Sanatan Tudu, hence she is the rightful owner of his property. In her cross-examination, she admitted that in the year 1976 she had filed a case for maintenance against her husband, Sanatan Tudu, but the case was not finalized and she was taken back by her husband and she had filed no revision petition. She also admitted in her cross-examination that her marriage was solemnized in Dhobna Church and the said marriage was registered in the Church Register.
16. After going through the evidences as adduced by the appellant, it appears that the applicant is admittedly Santhal Hindu and there is no evidence that she was converted to Christianity. The applicant's witnesses, as discussed above, have admitted that the deceased, late Sanatan Tudu was a Christian and he was also not converted to Hinduism. They have further admitted that the appellant, Most. Rajani Hembram got married about 30-32 years back with late Sanatan Tudu at Dhobna Church and she herself admits that her name was entered in the marriage register in the Church, but no such register was brought on record. Moreover, the appellant herself admitted that she had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance against her late husband, Sanatan Tudu, which was not decided, but the same have been proved by the respondent-objector. As far as documents filed by the appellant are concerned, it is included in the ration certificate in which there is no signature of the deceased,late Sanatan Tudu and all other documents i.e. C.O. Certificate is of the year 2003 i.e. much after the death of the appellant, who died about 13 years back. According to the evidence of P.W.4, Shishu Soren, who was examined and cross-examined on 12.1.2004 that there is no document which can prove late Sanatan Tuddu was a Christian and accepted the appellant as his wife during his lifetime. On the contrary, the objector filed her marriage certificate, which was marked as Ext.'C' issued by the Registrar of Marriages, Pakur on 21.12.1990 showing that late Sanatan Tuddu was married with Merry Murmu. Moreover, she also filed certified copy of order of Cr.Misc.Case No. 43 of 1976 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka and the learend Chief Judicial Magistrate by its order dated 18.8.77 gave a clear finding that Maloti @ Rajani Hembrom is not the legally wedded wife of late Sanatan Tuddu. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found that the applicant Maloti @ Rajani Hembrom was married with one Zopa Hansdah, which she conceded in her petition and no divorce took place between her and Zopa Hansdah. Moreover, the Court also found that there is no evidence. The Court further found that as per Section 4 of the Christian Marriage Act no marriage can take place between Hindu Santhal and Christian and came to a conclusive finding that the appellant is not the legally married wife of late Sanatan Tuddu and rejected her claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The opposite party has also proved the judgment given by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Cr. Rev. No. 253/77/48/79 which is marked as Ext.-'E' wherein the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 18.8.77 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 43/76 was confirmed and revision was dismissed. The applicant-appellant admitted to deny that she filed a revision subsequent to her 125 Cr.P.C. application, but her denial only show that she is trying to conceal the fact.
17. In that view of the matter, as discussed above, from the evidences, it is clear that the respondent, Mery Murmu is the legally wedded wife and the applicant-appellant has failed to prove by her evidence and document that she being a Hindu Santhal was ever married with late Sanatan Tudu according to any Christian Rite in the Church. The objector's claim has rightly been accepted by the trial court.
18. I find no merit in this appeal, and the same is accordingly dismissed.