JUDGMENT
Savant R.M., J.
1. Rule; made returnable forthwith and heard with the consent of the parties.
2. This Revision Application filed by the petitioner above named takes exception to the order dated 22.2.1999 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Parbhani. By the said order the Appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 was allowed and the Succession certificate was directed to be issued in the name of the appellant i.e. Janardhan. The above Civil Revision Application was filed on 5.6.2000, ad interim relief came to be granted on 12.4.2007 as the delay in filing the Civil Revision Application was condoned only in the year 2007. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 is not in a position to make a statement as to whether the respondent No. 1 has taken any steps pursuant to the issue of the succession certificate in his favour in respect of the debts and securities of the deceased Devidas.
3. The facts involved in the Revision are briefly stated thus:
(I) The respondent No. 1 herein filed Misc. Application No. 3 of 1985 before the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Parbhani for getting succession certificate to receive the debts and securities left by his deceased brother K. Devidas who was serving in the South Central Railways and died on 10.5.1983 at Purna leaving behind his Provident fund amount and other dues totally amounting to Rs. 53,950/-.
(II) The respondent No. 1 claimed that he is the only legal heir of the deceased K. Devidas and therefore entitled to receive his assets. In terms of the procedure prescribed a paper publication was issued in the local newspaper calling for objections. The petitioner herein appeared and filed an Objection Petition for herself and her two sons namely Rahul and Chandrakant that she is the wife of the said Devidas and she is having two sons from him namely Rahul and Chandrakant. The petitioner herein therefore objected for issuance of succession certificate to the respondent No. 1 and prayed for the said certificate being issued in her name and in the name of her minor sons.
(III) The petitioner contended that she and her two sons are the only legal heirs of the deceased Devidas and that the respondent No. 1 intentionally has not mentioned about them only to deprive them of their legal right.
(IV) The respondent No. 1 herein replied to the said objection of the petitioner contending that the petitioner is falsely claiming as wife of the said Devidas. It was the further contention of the respondent No. 1 that the petitioner is a lady of bad repute and that she was wife of one Hanumantappa, that she was having five children from him and that she was in the habit of deceiving people for extracting monies out of them by raising such objections.
(V) The respondent No. 1 therefore prayed for dismissing the Objection Petition of the petitioner and the grant of succession certificate to him.
(VI) The learned Civil Judge Senior Division considering the documents filed by the present petitioner as also considering the documents filed by the South Central Railways accepted that the petitioner is the wife of the said Devidas and also on the basis of the presumption under Section 50 of the Evidence Act accepted the fact that she was the wife of K. Devidas and therefore rejected the Application of the respondent No. 1 herein and granted the succession certificate in favour of the petitioner and her minor sons Rahul and Chandrakant. The learned Judge further directed that the respondent No. 1 if he was so entitled to in law can file a Suit for partition and possession. The learned Judge therefore by his order dated 6.11.1995 granted the succession certificate in favour of the respondent No. 1.
(VII) Being aggrieved by the said order dated 6.11.1995, passed in the said Misc. Application No. 3 of 1985 the respondent No. 1 preferred Misc. Civil Appeal No. 75 of 1995 before the learned Additional District Judge, Parbhani. The learned II Additional District Judge, Parbhani by the impugned order dated 22.2.1999 allowed the said Misc. Civil Appeal No. 75 of 1995 and set aside the order passed by the trial Court and directed that the succession certificate be issued in the name of the appellant i.e. the said Janardhan. As stated hereinabove this order is the subject-matter of the Revision Application.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. Shri Dalai the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner principally contended that the trial Court on the basis of the documents produced by the petitioner and on the basis of the record of the South Central Railway had come to a conclusion that the petitioner was the wife of the said deceased Devidas and was therefore entitled to the succession certificate. Shri Dalai further contended that once there was a record to show that there was co-habitation between the petitioner and the said Devidas, then the presumption under Section 50 of the Evidence Act comes into play and on the basis of the said presumption the trial Court had rightly held that the petitioner was the wife of the said Devidas and that Rahul and Chandrakant were the sons of the said Devidas. Shri Dalai further contended that the enquiry being of a summary nature for the grant of the succession certificate detail evidence which is usually a facet of trail is not applicable.
5. On the other hand Shri Patnoorkar the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 states that merely because there were certain documents which were produced by the petitioner it could not be stated that the petitioner was the wife of the said Devidas. More so when it was the specific case of the respondent No. 1 that the said Devidas was married and his wife had expired. Shri Patnoorkar further contended that the evidence of the respondent No. 1 has gone unchallenged as the petitioner did not cross-examine him. Shri Patnoorkar further submitted that the petitioner also did not step into the witness box to prima facie prove her case that she was legally wedded wife of the said Devidas. Shri Patnoorkar contended that the petitioner if she is so aggrieved, should approach the appropriate forum for a declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of the said Devidas and in the absence of such a declaration the petitioner was not entitled to the succession certificate. The burden on the petitioner according to Shri Patnoorkar was onerous in view of the fact that it is the case of respondent No. 1 that she was already married to one Hanumantappa from whom she had five children. Though the enquiry contemplated is of a summary nature, there has to be a bare minimum of evidence for a party to be entitled to the succession certificate. In juxtaposition to the petitioner’s case there was no dispute in sofar as the relationship of Janardhan with said Devidas is concerned. He being the brother of the said deceased Devidas was therefore entitled to the said succession certificate.
6. I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the rival contentions. No doubt it is true that the petitioner had produced about six documents which are reflected in the order passed by the trial Court but that by itself would not support the case of the petitioner being the legally wedded wife of the said Devidas. It is to be borne in mind that it is the specific case of the respondent No. 1 that the petitioner was the wife of one Hanumantappa from whom she had begotten five children. It is also the case of the respondent No. 1 that the said Devidas had married and his wife had died. Therefore the burden was on the petitioner to prove her relationship with Devidas as to when she had married the said Devidas. That having not been done by the petitioner the trial Court only on the basis of the presumption and the documents produced by the petitioner erred in holding that the petitioner was entitled to the succession certificate and that the application of the respondent No. 1 herein deserves rejection.
7. On the other hand the Appellate Court on the basis of the material which was before it came to a conclusion that the relationship had not been established. The petitioner had not even cross-examined the respondent No. 1 so as to demolish the case of the respondent No. 1, that she was the wife of one Hanumantappa and that the said Devidas was married and his wife had died. In my view there are too many loose ends in sofar as the petitioner is concerned. As indicated above though the enquiry is of summary nature there has to be a minimum of material for a party to be entitled to the succession certificate. The Appellate Court therefore has rightly held that the respondent No. 1 in his capacity as the brother of the said deceased Devidas stands on a higher pedestal than the petitioner whose relationship with the said Devidas is not proved, therefore rightly directed the grant of succession certificate to the respondent No. 1.
8. I do not find any error in the reasoning of the Appellate Court for this Court to interfere in it’s revisional jurisdiction. The Civil Revision Application is therefore dismissed and Rule discharged however it is made clear that the petitioner would be entitled to approach the appropriate forum for a declaration uiz-a-uiz her relationship with K. Devidas and in respect of her minor children so as to claim a share or interest in the property left by the said Devidas. If such proceedings are adopted the dismissal of the above Civil Revision Application which only concerns the issue of succession certificate would not come in her way.
9. Civil Revision Application is dismisse.