VIDYADHARI AND ORS versus SUKHRANA BAI AND ORS.

Citation: [2008] 1 S.C.R. 1030 · Decided: 22-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 1 S.C.R. 1030 
VIDYADHARI AND ORS. 
A 
-"'f 
II. 
SUKHRANA BAI AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 575 of 2008) 
JANUARY 22, 2008 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
'I 
Indian Succession Act, 1925: 
' 
...... 
s.372 -
Nominee - Right of -
Claim for grant of c 
Succession Certificate in respect of movable properties of 
deceased-husband - By first wife and separate claim by 
second wife and her children sired by deceased - Claim of 
second wife based on nomination in her favour - Trial Court 
granted Succession Certificate to the second wife on the 
ground that there was divorce between deceased and first wife D 
}., 
and second wife was his legal widow - On appeal, High Court 
~, 
held that there was no evidence of divorce between first wife 
and deceased and granted Succession Certificate to first wife 
- Justification of- Held: The fact that second wife was nominee 
is proved - A nominee has a right to file application under E 
s.372 - Deceased lived with the second wife for 20-25 years 
till his death and nominated her for availing death benefits -
Under such circumstances, she was preferable even to legally 
wedded wife - High Court was not justified in granting claim of 
d 
first wife to the exclusion not only of the nominee of deceased F 
but also to the exclusion of his legitimate legal heirs -
Therefore accepting the view of High Court that first wife was 
legitimate wife, yet, certificate is granted in favour of second 
wife who was mother of four children of deceased - To balance 
the equities, Succession Certificate is granted with a rider that G 
second wife would protect 115th share offirst wife. 
_:,. 
'"' 
One 'S' was working in mines of Western Coalfield. 
'SB' was first wife of 'S'. There was no issue out of this 
wedlock. 'S' then married 'V'. Two sons and two daughters 
1030 
H 
1031 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 
A were born to 'V'. 'S' died while in service. Both 'SB' and 
'V' filed separate application for obtaining the Succession 
t-
Certificate with respect to the movable properties of 
deceased. It is admitted that 'S' had nominated 'V' to 
receive the dues and death benefits. 'V' in her application 
B besides herself disclosed names of her children as the 
legal heirs of 'S'. 
Trial Court held 'V' to be the legal widow of 'S' and 
y 
her children to be legal heirs of 'S' and held 'V' entitled to 
> 
grant of the Succession Certificate. The conclusion of Trial 
.._ 
c Court was based on the opinion that 'S' belonged to the 
'Shudra' community and in Shudra community if the wife 
deserted her husband and no effort was made by the 
husband to take her back as his wife then under Hindu 
law it is presumed that divorce had taken place between 
D the two. Thus, a finding was given that 'S' had divorced 
'SB' and thereafter solemnized second marriage with 'V' 
..l_, 
and, therefore, the marriage of 'V' was legal. 
~ 
On appeal, High Court held that there was no 
E evidence to hold that customary divorce had taken place 
between 'SB' and 'S' nor was there any pleading about 
the factum of any customary divorce or existence of any 
custom. Stopping here itself, the High Court directed that 
the Succession Certificate should be granted in favour of 
'SB'. 
F 
In appeal to this Court, 'V' contended that while 
L 
granting certificate in favour of 'SB', the claim of four 
children was altogether ignored as, admittedly, 'SB' had 
sought the certificate for herself alone; and that even if 
G there was no divorce between 'SB' and 'S' and 'V' was 
not held to be his legal wife but since the children 
admittedly were sired by 'S', they were legitimate children 
,f 
entitled to inherit 'S'. 
Allowing the appeal, _the Court 
H 
VIDYADHARI AND ORS. v. SUKHRANA BAI AND ORS. 
1032 
HELD: 1.1 There can be no dispute that 'V' had never A 
-''t 
pleaded any divorce, much less customary divorce 
between 'SB' and 'S'. There were no pleadings and hence 
no issue arose on that count. Therefore, the High Court 
was right in holding that marriage between 'SB' and 'S' 
was very much subsisting when 'S' got married to 'V'. B 
Unfortunately, the High Court stopped there only and did 
not consider the question as to whether inspite of this 
'i 
factual scenario, 'V' could be rendered the Succession 
' 
Certificate. The High Court almost presumed that 
, 
Succession Certificate can be applied for only by the c 
legally wedded wife to the exclusion of anybody else and 
completely ignored the admitted situation t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.