IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.317 of 2005 RAJAN KUMAR RAMAN & ORS Versus RENU KUMARI WITH MA No. 241 of 2005 Ranjan Kumar Raman & Ors. Versus Renu Kumari. ---------- For the appellants: Mr. Sadhu Saran Yadav, Adv. Mr. Ram Nath Saran, Adv. For the respondent: Mr. S. K. Majumdar,Sr.Adv. Mr. Dinesh Pd.Verma, Adv. --------------- 14 24.11.2008 The appellant, Ranjan Kumar Raman and others filed succession case No.5 of 1993 against respondent Renu Kumari which was dismissed vide order dated 13.4.2005 of the learned Additional District Judge cum Fast Track Court No.2, Madhepura. The succession case had been filed for obtaining succession certificate with respect to Rs. 13,000/- which was deposited under SB Account No. 47/26827 of State Bank of India, Madhepura. The appellant/petitioner Ranjan Kumar Raman had claimed succession certificate on the ground that he was the adopted son of Raj Kumari Choudhary who had deposited the money and who had died on 10.6.1991 in an occurrence of assault by criminals. The O.P. Renu Kumari had also filed succession case No.5 of 1992 with similar prayer on similar grounds that she was adopted daughter of deceased Raj Kumari Choudhary , hence, she was entitled for the money. Vide the - 2 - same order dated 13.4.2005, the learned court below allowed her claim and ordered for issuance of succession certificate in her favour. Since the common impugned order dated 13.4.2005 passed in succession cases No. 05 of 1992 and 09 of 19993 had gone against the appellant Ranjan Kumar Raman. He had filed the two appeals i.e. M.A. No. 317 of 2003 and M.A. No.241 of 2005. Both the parties had claimed succession certificate on the ground that they were the adopted son or daughter of the deceased Raj Kumari Choudhary and one party had challenged the claim of the other. The O.P. Renu Kuamri who was the petitioner under succession case No. 05 of 1992 had examined P.W.4 Arjun Prasad Sah, her natural father who had deposed that he had given his daughter Renu Kumari in adoption to deceased Raj Kumari Choudhary and that thereafter Renu Kumari lived for some time in his house and then she again went to the house of Raj Kumari Choudhary. The O.P. Renu Kumari also exhibited some documents, namely, exhibit -10, a complaint petition filed by deceased Raj Kumari Choudhary befor the C.J.M., Madhepura on 15.7.1987 and in her S.A. before the C.J.M. she had stated that Renu Kuamri was her adopted daughter. Further exhibit- C was an application filed by Raj Kuamri Choudhary in Madhepura P.S. Case No. 155 of 1988 - 3 - wherein Raj Kumar Choudhary had also stated that Renu Kumari was her daughter. Exhibit-D which was the informatory petition dated 17.9.1987 filed by Raj Kumari Choudhary wherein she had stated that she had adopted Renu Kumari at the time of her childhood. In exhibit-6 which was fardbeyan filed by deceased Raj Kumari Choudhary in Madhepura P.S. Case No.89 of 1988 she had stated that Renu Kumari had gone to her natural mother. Exhibit-7 as filed in succession case No.5 of 1993 was a petition filed by Arjun Sao Prasad before the C.J.M., Madhepura in P.S. No.201 of 1983 wherein Arjun Sao Prasad had stated that Renu Kumari was living under the care of Raj Kumari Choudhary (deceased). Thus, considering the oral evidence as well as documents which had been generated and filed before government officials and the Court of Law by the deceased mentioning fact of adoption of Renu Kumari by her, the learned court below found a prima facie case on succession in view of those materials in favour of Renu Kumri and ordered for grant of succession certificate in her favour. On the other hand the appellant Ranjan Kumar Raman had examined several witnesses including his father Baleshwar Bhagat (A.W.21) who all stated that deceased Raj Kumari Choudhary had adopted the appellant Ranjan - 4 - Kumar Raman as her son. But any date of adoption was not disclosed nor any document supporting factum of adoption was filed by the appellant. The court below considered that Baleshwar Bhagat admitted at para-30 of his deposition that a criminal case was going on in the year 1989 between deceased Raj Kumar Choudhary and Baleshwar Bhagat on the allegation of assault on her and that the case was dropped after the death of Raj Kumari Choudhary. The learned counsel below considered that when Baleshwar Bhagat, the father of appellant was so inimical that criminal case was filed by the deceased Raj Kumari Choudhary there was no possibility or occasion for the deceased to have adopted Baleshwar’s son i.e. the appellant as son. In order to attack factum of adoption in favour of O.P. Renu Kumari, the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the adoption of Renu Kumari is stated in the year 1968 and that in the voter list exhibit-J in succession case No.5 of 1992 mentions the age of Renu Kumari as 34 years in the year 1988. It was argued that according to this age in the year 1968 the deceased Raj Kumari Choudhary would be only 14 years, a minor and she could not have adopted Renu Kumari being a mother. In reply to this, the learned counsel for the appellant cited exhibit-E which is the voter list filed in succession case No.5 of 1993 and which - 5 - mentions the age of deceased Raj Kumari Choudhary as 41 years in the 1989. According to this age Raj Kuamri Choudhary would be aged 21 years in the year 1961 and thus she could have adopted Renu Kumari. Thus, exhibits- J and E which are voter lists of the year 1988 and 1989 display a very contradictory and confusing state of affairs with regard to the age of the deceased Raj Kumari Choudhary. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to exhibit-10, the post-mortem report in succession case No.5 of 1992 which mentions the age of the deceased as 35 years. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the age mentioned in the post-mortem report was simply for referral purpose and it is not a conclusive material in this regard. Referring exhibit-10 which is examination on S.A. of deceased Raj Kumari Choudhary and in complaint case No. 302C of 1987 it is pointed out that the deceased had stated on 15.7.1987 that her age was 20 years. But in reply to this, the learned counsel for the respondent refers to exhibit-9 which is an affidavit filed by Raj Kumari Choudhary on 21.11.1987 with the averment that in the year the statement on S.A. she had mistakably stated her age as 20 years and that her real age was 40 years. The learned counsel for the appellant tried to challenge the factum of adoption of Renu Kumari by - 6 - deceased Raj Kumari Choudhary on various grounds but this could not be nor it was permissible in a proceeding like succession case. If a question of title in this regard was raised, the parties were at liberty to raise such questions by raising question of title in a title suit for the purpose but nothing was done. The learned court below has rightly gone into the question of adoption for considering a prima face case for the parties for issuance of succession certificate on the basis of documentary and oral evidence as brought forth by the parties. The learned court below was justified in finding a prima facie case in favour of the respondent Renu Kumari and thus he correctly ordered for issuance of a succession certificate in her favour. In such view of the matters, I find no scope of interference in the impugned order. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. (C.M. Prasad, J.) Ravi/-