WPMS No.1404 of 2005 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. Prashant Khanna, the learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. R. P. Nautiyal, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sudhir Kumar, the learned brief holder for the respondent nos.1 & 2 and Mr. M. S. Bhandari, the learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Pankaj Purohit, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.3, 4 & 5. One Jagdish Prasad died on 08.03.1995. The petitioners, being the sons and daughter of the deceased, filed an application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act for obtaining a succession certificate. In these proceedings, respondent nos.3, 4 & 5 filed an impleadment application, which was allowed by an order dated 02.12.2002. The said respondents contended that respondent no.3 Smt. Champa Devi was the second wife of the deceased and respondent no.4 & 5, namely, Meenu and Vivek, were the minor daughter and son of the deceased respectively through the respondent no.3. The petitioners opposed the said application contending that respondent no.3 was not the second wife of the deceased and respondent nos.4 & 5 were not the children of the deceased. The trial court, after considering the material evidence on record, held that the respondent no.3 was the second wife of the deceased and respondent nos.4 & 5 were the children of the deceased born through respondent no.3. The trial court, consequently, directed issuance of the succession certificate in the name of the petitioners as well as in the name of respondent nos.3, 4 & 5. The petitioners, being aggrieved, filed an appeal which was rejected. The petitioners have accordingly approached this court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Before this court, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent no.3 could not become the lawful and legally wedded wife of the deceased in as much as she started living with the deceased during the lifetime of the first wife and, therefore, the recording of the names of respondent no.3 and her children in the succession certificate is patently illegal. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties at some length, the court finds that there is no corroborative proof brought on record to show that the deceased started living with respondent no.3 during the lifetime of his first wife. Such evidence was neither brought on record nor such averment was raised before the trail court. In fact, the petitioners contended from the initial stage that respondent no.3 was not the second wife of the deceased. -2- In the light of the aforesaid, the court does not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 16.12.2011 LSR