Ram Jatan Murmu Vs. Marshila Marandi and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- what remains to be seen is as to whether pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. if these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under section 304b, ipc will be complete.[para 9] the question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of pinki. we must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9] it is clear that pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. the finding of the trial court and the appellate court in that behalf is correct. for this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10] it is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under section 304b, ipc with the aid of section 113b, indian evidence act but also the offence under section 201, ipc. [para 15] held: we have gone through the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court carefully and we find that both the courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. we, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16]pradeep kumar, j.1. heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent.2. the instant appeal has been filed by ram jatan murmu s/o babu ram murmu, who had earlier filed an application before the trial court under section 372 of the indian succession act through is grandfather dhona murmu for grant of succession certificate which was refused and by the impugned order dated 16th september, 1998, learned district judge, sri harishankar-prasad, dumka(s.p.) granted succession certificate to the mother, marshila marandi-respondent no. 1 in the case. after filing of the appeal and during the pendency of the same, the appellant -minor, ram jatan murmu has become major and has prayed to contest the appeal as major, as allowed by order dated 15.4.2010.3. learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since,, appellant is major, as per the santhal law under their customary law accepted by hon'ble supreme court and also by this hon'ble court in various judgments, he alone being the male heir of his father, baburam murmu is entitled to succeed to the properties of his father including the insurance policy, provident fund and money etc. it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the trial court had granted certificate in favour of the mother holding that she is the natural guardian of the minor son, ram jatan murmu. since, his grandfather has wrongfully kept him and filed succession certificate, the succession certificate was granted in favour of the mother as natural guardian, but now the situation has changed and the son himself is in a position to look after the properties of his father and also his mother.learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the hon'ble supreme court reported in '1996 scc 1864 in the case of madhu kishwar v. state of bihar', where in it was held that a tribal woman cannot succeed as absolute owner of the property of her husband and as such the impugned judgment is fit to be set aside and the appeal may be allowed.4. on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the widow-mother-respondent, marshila marandi, after the death of her husband was ousted from the house of her husband and her son, ram jatan murmu was taken in possession by the grandfather dhona murmu and as such the respondent-widow, who had got no source of her maintenance has rightly been granted succession certificate with regard to the provident fund, gratuity, insurance policy etc. of her husband because she has got no other source of income. all the lands and property are under the control of the appellant-son-ram jatan murmu and his grandfather, dhona murmu and as such the impugned order should not be disturbed. it is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that even the learned district judge in the impugned order has relied upon the decision of 'madhu kishwar reported in 1996 scc page 1864' and the said judgment is not against the respondents and hence it requires no interference.5. after hearing both the parties and after going through the evidences on record, i find that the learned trial court, while deciding the rival claims of the parties i.e. claim of succession certificate by the respondent-minor son through his grandfather dhona murmu and claim of the mother, marshila marandi found that marshila marandi being the natural guardian and mother of the minor is entitled to get the succession certificate. learned district judge relied upon the case of 'madhu kishwar reported in all patna law journal (vol. 2) page 119 which is equivalent to the case reported in 1996 scc page 1864 being relied by learned counsel for the appellant'. learned counsel for the appellant has rightly submitted that the learned district judge while passing the judgment in favour of the mother has relied on the minority view given by hon'ble mr. justice k. ramaswami wherein the learned judge in para 41 of his judgment gave the finding and hold that 'the provision of the hindu succession act, 1956 and the indian succession act, 1925 though in terms would not apply to the scheduled tribes, the general principles contained therein being consistent, justice equity, fairness, justness and good conscience would apply to them. it is further held that the scheduled tribe women would succeed to the estate of their parent, brother, husband as heirs by intestate succession and inherit the property with equal share with male heir with absolute rights as per the general principle of hindu succession act, 1956' and learned district judge finally found that since, a santhal female succeeded to the properties of her husband along with male and since, he has got the right of inheritance and being the mother, she being the natural guardian, after her husband is entitled to care and guardianship of the minor son, ram jatan murmu. hence, learned district judge decided issue no. 2, 3, and 4 in favour of the respondent- mother, marshila marandi and finally granted succession certificate to her.6. after going through the entire judgment as passed by the hon'ble supreme court in the case of 'madnu kishwar reported in 1996 scc page 1864 (supra)', it appears that view accepted by the learned district judge, dumka is the minority view of the judgment which was given by hon'ble mr. justice k. ramaswami, while the majority view judgment, which has been passed by hon'ble mr. justice m.m. punchhi and hon'ble mr. justice kuldip singh start from para 44 of the judgment have disagreed with said finding given by hon'ble mr. justice k. ramaswami and at para 49 of the judgment and after discussing the various provisions of chotanagpur tenency act, 1908 specially section 7 and 8 of the said act came to a conclusive finding at para 55 of the judgment and gave a finding as under 'traditionally and historically the agriculturally family is identified by the male head and that is what section 7 and 8 of the act recognized. but, on his death, his dependent family females, such as his mother, widow; daughter, daughter-in-law, grand daughter and other joint with him have, under section 7 and 8, to make way to a male relative within and outside of the family of the deceased entitled there under disconnecting them from the land and their means of livelihood. their, right to livelihood in that instance gets affected, a right constitutionally recognized, a right which the female enjoyed in common with the last male holders of the tenancy. it is in protection of the right to livelihood that the immediate female relatives of the last male tenant for constitutional remedy to stay on holding the land so long as they remain dependent on it for earning their liyelihood, for otherwise it would render them destitute.. it is on the exhaustion of, or abandonment of land by, such female descendants can the males in the line of descent take over the holding exclusively. in other words, the exclusive right of male succession conceived of in section 7 and 8 has remain suspended animation so long as the right of livelihood of the female descendant's of the last male holder remains valid and in vogue'.7. thus, it appears that the majority view as settled, the mother, till the female arc holding the property, she hold only till her life time, so that she can get livelihood from the property since, she has got no other means to maintain herself and constitution gives right to maintenance t6 such female to save them from becoming destitute.8. in that view of the matter, 1 find that although, learned district judge has granted succession certificate to respondent no. 1, marshila marandi, who is the mother and natural guardian also of the appellant, ram jatan murmu, but as per the judgment of the hon'ble supreme court in the case of 'madhu kishwar', as discussed above, the property she succeeded is only for her life time and after her death the property will go back to her son, ram jalan murmu.9. since, admittedly, marshila murmu is a widow and mother of the appellant and got no other source of income and livelihood to maintain herself, she is granted fifty percent (50%) of the estate of her husband for her maintenance till her life time and since, as per the schedule of the certificate case, amount granted is rs. 4,85,956.28/-, so she will get rs. 2,42,978.14/- and the other half will be given to the appellant ram jatan murmu, who has now become major and continuing his education. it is needless to say that property given to the mother will be deposited in fixed deposit in her name for life time and she will use the monthly interest to meet her both ends and after her death, the said property will come back to the son.10. accordingly, the judgment and finding passed by the learned district judge, dumka passed in succession case no. 12 of 1995 is amended as staled above and the succession certificate is granted in favour of the appellant ram jatan murmu and respondent- marshila marandi half and half as directed above. with the above amendment, the appeal is allowed in part.