The trial companyrt accepted the evidence adduced by the appellant herein and issued succession certificate in his favour while rejecting the succession certificate case filed by the respondent herein.
Since it was pleaded by the respondent herein that Ram Briksh Sharma was married twice, the burden was upon her to prove this fat.
The question, therefore which arises for companysideration is whether Ram Briksh Sharma was married only once to Buch Kumar Devi or whether he married twice and his first wife, namely, Ramdaso Devi gave birth to the respondent herein and Mahendra Narayan Sharma.
The appellant had also examined witnesses to prove the fact that Ram Briksh Sharma had married only once and in this regard the evidence of P.W. 1, 2 and 3 was reliable.
The High Court on companysideration of the evidence on record upset the findings recorded by the trial companyrt while allowing the miscellaneous appeals and granted succession certificate in favour of the respondent herein holding that the evidence on record established the fact that Ram Briksh Sharma had married twice, his first wife being Ramdaso Devi, and that the respondent herein and Mahendra Narayan Sharma were born to said Ramdaso Devi.
The respondent preferred Misc.
The parties led evidence before the trial companyrt.
66/93 in the Court of 11th Additional District Judge Patna.
462 and 463 of 1997 before the High Court of judicature at Patna impugning the judgment and order of the 11th Additional District Judge Patna dated 18.9.97.
The trial companyrt discussed their evidence at length and came to the companyclusion that O.P.W. 1, 4 and 6 were unreliable and companyld number be believed.
Thus the appellant claimed to be the real brother of the husband of the deceased Brij Kishori Devi both being the sons of Ram Briksh Sharma and Buch Kumari Devi while respondent claimed to be the real sister of Mahendra Narayan Sharma both being the issues of Ram Briksh Sharma and Ramdaso Devi, the first wife of Ram Briksh Sharma.
Nirmala Devi the respondent herein claimed to be 21 years younger to Mahendra Narayan Sharma which means that she was born in or about the year 1937.
It found that the witnesses who deposed at the trial on behalf of the respondent Nirmala Devi were unreliable and it was apparent that they were number revealing the truth.
Appeal Nos.
P. Singh, J. These appeals by special leave are directed against the order of the High Court of Judicature at Patna In L.P.A. Nos.
This Succession case was numbered as Succession Certificate Case No.
Mahendra Narayan Sharma, the husband of late Brij Kishori Devi was born on 1.1.1916 while the appellant Virendra Kumar Tripathy was born in the year 1929.
