THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos:716 & 2789 of 1999 COMMON JUDGMENT: These two appeals are filed against the order, dated 26.11.1998 passed in O.P.No.626 of 1992 on the file of District Judge Nellore. The O.P. was filed by respondents 1 and 2 in both the appeals, under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, for grant of succession certificate to enable them to withdraw a sum of Rs.50,000/- payable to late Shaik Zilani Basha. It was pleaded that the first respondent is the wife of Zilani Basha and the second respondent is their daughter. In the O.P., no respondents were impleaded. Both the appellants herein entered appearance and objected. Both of them claimed to be the wives of Zilani Basha. The trial Court held that the appellants failed to prove their status as wives of the deceased and accordingly allowed the O.P. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. The deceased Zilani Basha was employed as a clerk in the Nellore Municipality. He died on 19.07.1992. Thereupon, his wife, the first respondent herein, and the daughter, the second respondent herein filed the O.P. The appellant in C.M.A.No.716 of 1999 i.e., Shaik Mariyamma, claimed that she was married to Zilani Basha and when he neglected to maintain her, she filed M.C.No.7 of 1985 in the Court of III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nellore. The trial Court examined the evidence in detail. It was found that M.C.No.7 of 1985 was filed by one Smt. R. Mariyamma and not shaik Mariyamma. Further, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent in M.C.No.7 of 1985 was said to have been taken place in 1974 at Venkateswarapuram, whereas, the appellant as RW.1 stated that her marriage with Zilani Basha was took place at Kovur. Several other discrepancies were also noticed. It was elicited through her as RW.1 that her first husband died about 30 years back at Vijayawada and that her parents are non-Muslims. By taking these aspects into account, the trial Court held that she was not married Zilani Basha. So far as the appellant in C.M.A.No.2789 of 1999 is concerned, she deposed as RW.3 and filed a ration card under Ex.B.2. The trial Court found that Ex.B.2 is not signed or authenticated by any official and that several places were tampered with ink. None of the appellants herein were living with the deceased. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under appeal. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ (L. Narasimha Reddy, J.) 9th October, 2009 Js.