IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1510 of 2008 RAM SAHELI DEVI Versus MINO DEVI ----------- 2. 26.9.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court the impugned judgment of the appellate court affirming the judgment of the trial court with regard to grant of succession certificate does not suffer from any error either vitiated by any immaterial irregularity or by way of jurisdictional error. Mr. Radha Mohan Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, was quite emphatic that under the provisions of section 373 of the Indian Succession Act the moment there is an opposition to issue of such succession certificate, the court has no option but to convert it into a title suit. Such argument has only to be noticed for its being rejected. It would appear from the scheme of the Act including section 373 thereof that true it is that such succession certificate has to be issued by way of a summary 2 proceeding but then the court is not precluded in such summary proceeding to examine the contentions raised as with regard to the objection raised in relation to the same. It is not a rule of thumb as has been sought to be canvassed by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that in a summary proceeding no evidence can be recorded and the court below has committed a jurisdictional error. by recording evidence for the purposes of ascertaining the fact of relationship of the opposite party with Late Binay Kumar Choudhary. In fact this aspect as with regard to maintainability was also gone at length by the appellate court which after placing reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Md. Rashid & Ors. Vs. Bibi Roshan Jahan & Ors. reported in 2004(3) PLJR 63 has held that the Court granting succession certificate can examine evidence to find out a prima-facie case as with regard to marriage etc. It has further held that the procedure adopted by the trial court was completely in conformity with the provisions 3 of section 373 of the Indian Succession Act. Such findings of both the Court can not be lightly interfered by this Court in its power under Section 115 C.P.C. The next submission on behalf of the petitioner that under section 50 of the Evidence Act the relevance of relationship would be determined in context of the examples given therein has to be also noted for its being rejected. What has really in this respect impressed this Court is that the both the Court have relied on evidence of a large number of witnesses who had come out to support the inception and the factum of marriage and therefore the petitioner can not insist that there was no evidence on the point of marriage as none had seen the opposite party with the husband after marriage. Section 50 of the Evidence Act does not make the marriage inadmissible in evidence only because she would become widow next day after her marriage. The Counsel for the petitioner infact could not point any jurisdictional error in the impugned appellate order affirming the order of the trial court in 4 the grant of succession certificate to the opposite party and infact this Court would find that both the court below have considered all the relevant aspects in a graphic manner, which cannot be interfered by this Court in exercise of its revisional power under Section 115 C.P.C. That being so, this Court would not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/