VIRENDRA KUMAR TRIPATHY versus NIRMALA DEVI AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 459 · Decided: 23-02-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

,,-7 
VIRENDRA KUMAR TRIPATHY 
A 
v. 
NIRMALA DEVI AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 23, 2006 
[B.P. SINGH AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
B 
• . 
_ _... 
Evidence: 
Appreciation of evidence-By High Court-In appeal against decision c 
of Trial Court which had granted succession certificate in favour of Appellant 
while rejecting the case of Respondent-Propriety of-Held, improper-since 
High Court did not consider evidence adduced by Appellant which was accepted 
by Trial Court-And wrongfully held in favour of Respondent only on the 
basis of certain letters written by Appellant to sons of Respondent, even though 
the Trial Court had given cogent reasons to doubt testimony of witnesses D 
de_TJosing on behalf of Respondent-Hence, order of High Court set aside and 
~ 
that of Trial Court restored-Succession. 
4.. 
After death of one 'MN', his wife succeeded to his estate. She also 
died. Subsequently, Appellant sought grant of succession certificate to the 
estate claiming that he was the rea I brother of' MN'. He claimed that his E 
father 'RB' had five children which included him, his brother 'MN' and 
three sisters. 
However, Respondent claimed that Appellant was only a step-brother 
of 'MN' and that she herself was the real sister of 'MN', hence entitled to F 
grant of succession certificate in preference to Appellant. Respondent 
--+ 
claimed that 'RB' had married twice; that his first wife 'RD' gave birth 
to Respondent and 'MN' while the second wife gave birth to Appellant 
and three daughters. 
Trial Court accepted the evidence adduced by Appellant and issued G 
succession certificate in his favour. It rejected the succession certificate 
case filed by the Respondent after finding the witnesses deposing on her 
i 
behalf to be unreliable. High Court however set aside the findings recorded 
T 
by the Trial Court and granted succession certificate in favour of the 
Respondent. Hence the present appeals. 
459 
H 
460 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2006] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. Surprisingly the High Court did not at all consider the 
evidence led by the appellant in support of his case which was accepted 
by the Trial Court. The evidence of A.P.W. 1, 2 and 3 are relevant and 
B they fully support the case of the appellant. Having regard to the oral 
evidence on record, this Court is satisfied that the Trial Court having 
consiaered the evidence at length C'ame to the correct conclusion that the 
witnesses examined by the Respondent did not appear to be truthful and 
could not be relied upon. So far as the evidence of O.P.W.1, 6 and 4 is 
concerned, the Trial Court gave cogent reasons to doubt their testimony. 
C 
1465-A-B-CJ 
2.1. From the letters written by Appellant to the sons of Respondent, 
it cannot be inferred that Respondent must have been the sister of the 
Appellant merely because in the said letters the Appellant was described 
D as Mama, and he referred to the sons of Respondent as Bhagina (sister's 
son). 1465-C-DI 
2.2. There is evidence on record to show that Respondent was also 
distantly related to the appellant. lit any event, the two families were on 
visiting terms and it cannot be denied that the appellant and the 
E respondent were known to each other. The assertion of the appellant that 
he came to know Respondent only after objections were filed in his 
succession case cannot be accepted. But even so, one cannot jump to the 
conclusion that since he described himself as the Mama it must be held · 
that he was the brother of the Respo11dent. Very often because of closeness 
F of families even distant relatives are addressed as uncle, and sometimes 
even persons unrelated are referred to as uncle i.e. Chacha or Mama etc. 
(465-D-E-Fl 
2.3. Since it is the admitted ca:1e of the parties that the appellant is 
not the real brother of Respondent he must be her step brother. Since in 
G one of the rejoinders filed by the appellant it was stated that 'RD' was 
the daughter of one Deolal Pandey and Respondent was her daughter, the 
High Court connected these two facts and came to the conclusion that 'RD' 
was married to 'RB'. This Court does not subscribe to this logic because 
' 
; 
. ,. 
~· 
there is no evidence to show that 'RD' was ever married to 'RB'. Hence, 
., 
H the High Court was not justified in setting aside the findings of the Trial 
) 
I 
VIRENDRA KUMAR TRIPATHY v.NIRMALA DEVI [B.P. SINGH, J.] 461 
Court. Accordingly, the order of the High Court is set aside and that of A 
,;--,... 

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