CR No.6235 of 2007 - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.6235 of 2007 Date of Decision: 12.10.2009 **** Ramesh Kumar . . . . Petitioner VS. Sona Devi and others . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Surender Saini, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Bijender Dhankar, Advocate for the respondents ***** SURYA KANT J. 1) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 5.12.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat, whereby the order dated 24th March, 2005 of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat has been set aside and the application moved by the 1st respondent – Sona Devi (since deceased and represented by the legal representatives) to grant Succession Certificate to the extent of 5/6th share to enable her to withdraw the amounts lying in the account of late Hoshiar Singh, has been allowed. 2) The controversy pertains to the grant of Succession Certificate for payment of the retiral and other monetary benefits admissible to Hoshiar Singh s/o Thana Rama r/o Subhash Nagar, Sonepat who unfortunately passed away on 19.01.1996, while serving as a Driver in the Health Department, Office of the Civil Surgeon, Sonepat. 3) The petitioner is admittedly the son of deceased Hoshiar Singh from his first wife, who too had expired. Besides the petitioner, Hoshiar Singh had three daughters from his first wife i.e. respondent No.3,4 & 5. CR No.6235 of 2007 - 2 – 4) After the death of Hoshiar Singh, respondent No.1-Sona Devi also applied for the grant of Succession Certificate on the plea that she was a legally wedded wife of Hoshiar Singh with whom the deceased had married after the death of his first wife. 5) While the petitioner denies the performance of second marriage by his deceased father with Sona Devi, the First Respondent has led documentary evidence comprising the ration card (Ex.PW1/2); Voters’ List (Ex.PW1/4); photographs (Ex.PW1/10); Clearance certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner (PW1/7) and two Wills dated 19th September, 1988 (Ex.PW1/11) and (Ex.PW1/12). She has also produced a certificate regarding clearance of loan by her, (Ex.PW1/15) taken by deceased Hoshiar Singh, in order to establish that she was a legally wedded wife of the deceased. 6) The trial Court dismissed the application moved by the first Respondent - Sona Devi (since deceased) after observing that at the time of her alleged marriage with Hoshiar Singh, she had grand-children and/or there is no conclusive evidence to establish the performance of her marriage with Hoshiar Singh, the First Appellate Court has however, set aside that order and allowed the application of Sona Devi for the grant of Succession Certificate after relying upon the above mentioned documentary evidence and coming to the conclusion that the evidence on record does suggest that Hoshiar Singh and Sona Devi were living together, giving rise to the presumption of a matrimonial alliance between them. 7) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the impugned orders. CR No.6235 of 2007 - 3 – 8) It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that Son Devi in fact was inducted as a tenant by his deceased father in a part of the residential house and no marriage was ever performed between them. 9) Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, urges that the overwhelming documentary evidence clearly establishes that Hoshiar Singh and Sona Devi were living together as husband and wife and, thus, presumption of a valid marriage between them can be safely drawn. 10) The law is well-settled that where the live-in-relationship between the parties for a sufficient long period is proved, it would give rise to the presumption of a valid marriage between them. The variety of documents produced by the first Respondent also indicate that they have been living together as husband and wife, may be there was no ceremonial marriage performed. It is, therefore, difficult to believe the petitioner’s plea that his father (Hoshiar Singh) or the first respondent never ever lived together as husband and wife. In any case, such a presumption need not be drawn in summary proceedings like issuance of a Succession Certificate. 11) Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, is right in contending that the impugned order dated 5.12.2005 passed by the First Appellate Court does not specify the entitlement of the petitioner or his sisters, namely, three daughters of the deceased Hoshiar Singh from his first marriage, for their respective shares in the retiral or other monitory benefits to which late Hoshiar Singh was entitled to. 12) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, i am of the considered view that there being no serious dispute with regard to the status of the petitioner or of respondents No.3, 4 & 5 as children of deceased Hoshiar Singh, the impugned CR No.6235 of 2007 - 4 – order deserves to be modified to the extent that the petitioner, his sisters- respondents No.3, 4 & 5 and the first respondent, shall be equally entitled to one share each in the retiral or other monitory and service benefits admissible to the deceased employee (late Hoshiar Singh) or his family, as the case may be. 13) Ordered accordingly. 14) Dasti. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 12.10.2009 shonkar