VIDYADHARI vs SUKHRANA BAI . Supreme Court, 22-01-2008
| Judge | S.B. SINHA,V.S. SIRPURKAR |
| Parties | VIDYADHARISUKHRANA BAI . |
| Docket Number | C.A. No.-000575-000575 / 2008 |
| Date | 22 January 2008 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 575 of 2008
PETITIONER:
Vidyadhari & Ors.
RESPONDENT:
Sukhrana Bai & Ors.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/01/2008
BENCH:
S.B. Sinha & V.S. Sirpurkar
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.6758 of 2007)
V.S. SIRPURKAR,J.
1. Leave granted.
2. A common judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at
Jabalpur, disposing of two Miscellaneous Appeals is in challenge before
us. The appeals were filed by one Smt.Sukhrana Bai claiming herself to
be the widow of one Sheetaldeen. Sheetaldeen was working as a CCM
Helper in Mines P.K.1 of the Western Coalfields at Pathakheda and died
on 9.5.1993 while in service. Two separate applications came to be filed
under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act for obtaining succession
certificate with respect to the movable properties of deceased
Sheetaldeen, one of them was filed by Vidhyadhari registered as
Succession Case No.3/96 while the other came to be filed by Sukhrana
Bai which was registered as Succession Case No.10/95. Both the cases
were joined and tried together by the Trial Court which allowed the
application filed by Vidhyadhari (SC No.3/96) and dismissed the one filed
by Sukhrana Bai (SC No.10/95). Sukhrana Bai, therefore, filed two
Miscellaneous Appeals being MA 33/1998 and MA 43/1998 which came to
be allowed by the High Court in favour of Sukhrana Bai. Vidhyadhari,
therefore, is before us in this appeal. Before we proceed with the matter, a
factual background would be necessary.
3. Admittedly, Sukhrana Bai was the first wife of Sheetaldeen, while
during the subsistence of this marriage, Sheetaldeen got married with
Vidhyadhari. Two sons and two daughters were born to Vidhyadhari, they
being Smt.Savitri, Naresh @ Ramesh, Ms.Chanda @ Durga and Baliram,
while Sukhrana Bai does not have any children.
4. Vidhyadhari in her application before the Trial Court (SC No.3/96),
besides herself, disclosed the names of her children as the legal heirs of
Sheetaldeen. It was also revealed that deceased Sheetaldeen had
nominated her for receiving amounts under the Provident Fund, Family
Pension Scheme and Coal Mines Deposits Life Scheme. She also
disclosed that she has received a sum of Rs.45036/- towards gratuity
amount of the deceased from the employer of Sheetaldeen, i.e., Western
Coalfields Ltd. She, therefore, claimed the Succession Certificate on the
basis of the nominations besides her marriage with Sheetaldeen.
5. As stated above, both the Succession Cases came to be
consolidated and tried together. In SC No.10/95, filed by Sukhrana Bai,
Vidhyadhari raised an objection that Sukhrana Bai was not the heir of
deceased Sheetaldeen and though Sheetaldeen initially nominated
Vidhyadhari to receive the dues after his death as per Form A,
subsequently he cancelled that nomination and filled in a second Form A in
which he had nominated Smt.Vidhyadhari and in description of his family
members he had indicated her to be the wife, one Naresh as his son and
Ms.Chanda @ Durga as his daughter. It was also pointed out that
Sukhrana Bai had not claimed any dues from the office of Sheetaldeen.
To continue reading
Request your trial