Page No.# 1/18 GAHC040001272025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : FAO/2/2025 Smti Rotom Yama Wife of Late Gocham Taga, a permanent resident of Village Raga, PO and PS Raga, Kamle District, Arunachal Pradesh and presently residing at CCF Colony, Banderdewa, PO and PS Banderdewa, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS Ms Tsering Dekey and 4 Ors District Tourism Officer (DTO), Tawang, PO and PS Tawang, Arunachal Pradesh 2:Timi Gocham Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Late Gocham Taga a permanent resident of Village Raga PO and PS Raga Kamle District Arunachal Pradesh and presently residing at C.C.F colony Banderdewa PO and PS Banderdewa Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 3:Sakter Gocham Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Late Gocham Taga a permanent resident of Village Raga PO and PS Raga Kamle District Arunachal Pradesh and presently residing at C.C.F colony Banderdewa Page No.# 2/18 PO and PS Banderdewa Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 4:Smti Yemi Gocham Age: 0 Occupation : Wife of Late Gocham Teni a resident of Village Raga PO and PS Raga Kamle District Arunachal Pradesh. 5:Miss Pinky Gocham Age: 0 Occupation : Daughter of Late Gocham Taga a permanent resident of Village Raga PO and PS Raga Kamle District Arunachal Pradesh and presently residing at C.C.F colony Banderdewa PO and PS Banderdewa Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Muk Pertin, Senior Advocate, Mudang Yubbey,1 T Pabin,Dusu Rillung,Dakjum Riba,Mukbang Pertin,Karyom Dabi Advocate for the Respondent : Tsering Gyatso, Logsang Yountan,Dejum Tally BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND Advocate for the appellant/petitioner: Mr. M. Pertin Advocate for the respondents : Mr. T. Gyatso Date on which judgment is reserved : 12.06.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 18.06.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment : Full judgment. Page No.# 3/18 Whether the full judgment has been pronounced : Yes JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV) 1. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Muk Pertin for the petitioner Rotom Yama who has challenged the judgment and order dated 14.10.2025 passed in connection with T.S. Succession Application No. 02/2023. 2. Also heard learned counsel Mr. T. Gyatso for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 5. The respondent Nos. 1 and 4 are not represented. The respondents arrayed in this case are as follows:- (i) Ms. Tsering Dekey as respondent No.1, (ii) Shri Timi Gocham as respondent No. 2, (iii) Shri Sakter Gocham as respondent No. 3, (iv) Smt. Yemi Gocham as respondent No. 4, and (v) Ms. Pinky Gocham as respondent No. 5 respectively. The respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 5 are the appellant’s children. 3. The appellant’s case is that the respondent No. 1, Ms. Tsering Dekey had filed a succession application before the Deputy Commissioner, Raga, regarding debt and securities left behind by late Gocham Taga who served as the District Information and Public Relation Officer, Bomdila. He passed away on 24.08.2020. Vide order dated 26.03.2021, the Deputy Commissioner, Raga granted succession certificate by dividing the debts and securities amongst the legal heirs of late Gocham Taga. 30% of the debts and securities were to be allocated to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and 40% of the debt and securities were to be allocated to the respondent No. 1. 4. It was observed that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are entitled to debts and Page No.# 4/18 securities as they are the children of late Gocham Taga and the appellant is entitled to succession certificate as she is the wife of late Gocham Taga. The appellant was aggrieved by the order dated 26.03.2021, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Raga as her marriage was solemnised with Gocham Taga in the Year, 1989 whereas, the respondent No. 1, Tsering Dekey is not the legally married wife of late Gocham Taga. The appellant Smt. Rotom Yama along with the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 approached this Court and vide order dated 09.02.2023, this Court in connection with FAO/05/2022, held that late Gocham Taga was residing in the District of Bomdila at the time of his death and the Deputy Commissioner, Raga have no jurisdiction to try the succession application filed under Section 371 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (Succession Act for short). 5. This Court then set aside the order dated 26.04.2021 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Raga (D.C. for short), District- Kamle and directed the parties to approach the Court of the District Judge, Bomdila to decide the issues amongst the parties. Subsequent thereto, the succession Title suit No. 02/2023 was registered and vide order dated 14.10.2024, it was held that the respondent No. 2, Timi Gocham; respondent No. 3, Sakter Gocham, being children are entitled to inherit the debts and securities left behind by late Gocham Taga in equal shares i.e., 25% each whereas the respondent No. 1, Smt. Tsering Dekey and the respondent No. 4, Smt. Yemi Gocham are entitled to debts and securities being wife and mother of late Gocham Taga in equal shares i.e., 25% each. It was ordered that the gratuity and any money payable under the Employees Group Insurance Scheme shall be received by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in equal shares as they were nominated by late Gocham Taga. Page No.# 5/18 6. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order as the evidence of respondent No. 1 as DW1 clearly reveals that she was married to Gocham Taga in the Year, 2012. 7. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the appellant was married to Gocham Taga way back in the Year, 1989 and she is the first wife and she deserves succession to the pensionary benefits. Smt. Tsering Dekey deposed as DW1 that the appellant was the first wife of Gocham Taga and at the time she was married to Gocham Taga, she was aware that the appellant was already married. She, however stated in her evidence that as Gocham Taga was already divorced and separated from his first wife, she (DW1) got married to him and she became his second wife. She further stated that since 2010, Gocham Taga was staying alone and she was acquainted with his siblings who had affirmed that Gocham Taga was divorced. She had one affidavit which reveals that Gocham Taga was divorced and after her divorce, the appellant got married to Dorjee Khandu in the Year, 2014. However, DW1 stated that she had not checked the decree of divorce and she had admitted that after she met Gocham Taga in the Year, 2012, she lived with him and in the Year, 2018, she (DW1) got married to Gocham Taga, but she could not produce any document to prove that she had lived with Gocham Taga continuously from the Year, 2012. 8. Drawing the attention of this Court to the deposition of DW1/respondent No. 1, (Smt. Tsering Dekey), the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant laid stress in his argument that admittedly, she was staying together with Gocham Taga from 2012 whereas, she got married to Gocham Taga in the Year, 2018. It is a false statement by DW1 that the appellant's marriage with Gocham Taga was dissolved in the Year, 2010. The appellant may have stayed separately from Page No.# 6/18 Gocham Taga but her marriage was never dissolved by a decree of divorce in 2010. If the respondent was aware that Gocham Taga was already married and his first wife, Rotom Yama was staying separately, she should not have married Gocham Taga as according to her statement, Rotom Yama got married to one, Dorjee Khandu in the Year, 2014. However, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has laid stress in his argument that Rotom Yama never married a person named Dorjee Khandu in the Year, 2014. 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has again drawn the attention of this Court to Exhibit, PEx-B(2) which is a certificate issued by a group of individuals nullifying the marriage between Rotom Yama and Gocham Taga. Annexure-6 is the certificate. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has submitted that this certificate was issued without hearing the appellant and thus this certificate is not valid. According to the customary laws, marriage between two individuals can be dissolved by a decree of divorce or can also be nullified by the Kebang/Keba after issuing summons/parwana to both the parties and after hearing both the parties. A close scrutiny of the Annexure-6 clearly reveals that the certificate was issued ex- parte without hearing the appellant, Smt. Rotom Yama. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 5 has no objection if the appeal is allowed. 11. The genesis of the case was that the appellant along with her children as plaintiffs have prayed for succession certificate on the following benefits:- 1. Saving Bank Account No. 11448128294 maintained in State Bank of India, Bomdila, 2. Saving Account No. 3380552218 maintained in Central Bank of India, Bomdila, 3. Arms Licence-12 Bore SBBL Gun No. 1346/Arms/DU issued by Page No.# 7/18 District Magistrate, 4. Vehicle No. AR-04-6125, and 5. Service Gratuity/Pension/GPF; which are the debts and securities left behind by late Gocham Taga. However, the gun and the pension were not considered as debts and securities and the Court decided not to grant any succession certificate regarding the gun and the pensionary benefits. It was also observed that the arms license and the pension are not transferable in nature and no succession certificate could be issued in connection with arms or pension. 12. The respondent No.1, Smt. Tsering Dekey through her written statement has not disputed that the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 5 are the children of Smt. Rotom Yama and late Gocham Taga. Respondent No. 5, Smt. Pinky Gocham is the adopted daughter of Smt. Rotom Yama and late Gocham Taga. Respondent No. 1 has strongly denied that the appellant Smt. Rotom Yama was the legally married wife of late Gocham Taga at the time of his death. Late Gocham Taga died intestate following a pressure stroke. Although the marriage between Rotom Yama and Gocham Tage in the Year, 1989 has not been denied by respondent No. 1, yet she has vehemently denied that Rotom Yama was the legally married to Gocham Taga at the time of his death, as Gocham Tage was separated from his previous wife and he had executed an affidavit during his lifetime dated 22.10.2018, declaring that he and Smt. Tsering Dekey are married. 13. It is also contended by the respondent No. 1 through her written statement that she was accepted by the Gocham family and the Village authority. She further alleged that Rotom Yama deserted Gocham Taga in the Year, 2010 and she got married to one, Dorjee Khandu and she was living with him as his wife. Page No.# 8/18 Therefore, Rotom Yama is not entitled to any debts or securities left behind by late Gocham Taga as she has been separated and her name has been deleted from his service record after late Gocham Taga got married to Tsering Dekey. It is also submitted that the name of respondent No. 1 was entered in the official documents as well as in the passport of Gocham Taga. 14. The following issues were framed by the Court:- “i. Whether the plaintiff namely Smti Rotom Yama is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Late Gocham Taga or whether the defendant Smt. Tsering Dekey is legally wedded wife of the deceased late Gocham Taga? ii. Whether the plaintiff No. 2 to 4 namely Shri Timi Gocham, Shri Sakter Gocham & Miss Pinky Gocham are legal heirs of the deceased Late Gocham Taga? iii. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get succession certificate in connection with debt & securities left by the deceased Late Gocham Taga and if so, to what extent? iv. To what other relief or reliefs the parties are entitled to?” 15. The appellant is basically aggrieved by the decision of the Court relating to Issue No. 1. 16. The learned District Judge did not accept the documentary evidence submitted by the appellant Rotom Yama as all the documents were photocopies and the respondent No. 1 had raised serious objection on the admissibility of the photocopies. The plaintiff/appellant, Smt. Rotom Yama adduced the evidence of three witnesses, including herself (PW1) and her two children, Sri Sakter Gocham (PW2) and Ms. Pinky Gocham (PW3), whereas, the respondent No. 1, Tsering Dekey adduced the evidence of three witnesses including herself as DW1, Gocham Tameng as DW2 and Smt. Gocham Yama as DW3. 17. The learned Trial Court did not accept the driving license and passbook Page No.# 9/18 exhibited by the appellant as P.Ex-6A and 6B respectively as valid piece of evidence. It was held by the learned Court that the name of the appellant is recorded as Smt. Gocham Yama in the driving license of late Gocham Taga, whereas in the Bank passbook, the plaintiff's name is written as Rotom Yama. The driving license was issued on 22.09.2014, and the exact date of initiation of the Bank account was not recorded in the Bank passbook. It was thus held by the learned Court that the plaintiff/appellant's name reflected in the plaint/petition does not tally with the name mentioned in P.Ex-6A and 6B and thus the driving license and the Bank passbook were not found to be reliable documents. It was again held by the Court that the Birth certificate and the School leaving certificates of Sakter Gocham (PW2) marked as Exhibit, P.Ex-8A and 8B respectively, reflects the name of the appellant/plaintiff as Yama Gocham and Rotom Yama respectively. The Court had observed that the exhibits reflect that the deceased, late Gocham Taga is shown as the father of plaintiff No. 3 and it was thus held that the plaintiff No. 3 is the son of Gocham Taga. However, it was held that the Birth certificate and the School leaving certificates are not reliable documents to establish existence of valid marriage between the plaintiff/appellant and late Gocham Taga, and it could not be presumed that even though they were married, they have not separated from each other. 18. It was also observed by the learned District Judge that no personal law is enacted in the State of Arunachal Pradesh to govern issues relating to marriage and divorce amongst the citizens of Arunachal Pradesh and Hindu law is not applicable to the tribal inhabitants of Arunachal Pradesh, nor is the Special Marriage or Divorce Act is applicable as their marriage is not solemnized under the aforementioned Acts. It was observed that all tribal inhabitants in Arunachal Pradesh have their own customs and traditions regarding marriage, divorce and Page No.# 10/18 inheritance of properties. There is no codification of such personal laws, and customs of different tribes differ from each other. 19. It is the common practice amongst all the tribes in Arunachal Pradesh that the marriages are to be solemnized under the custom and tradition of the tribe, and the same is accepted as legally valid marriage, once the relationship is accepted by the family and society of that particular tribe. It was held by the Court that the marriage between the appellant and late Gocham Taga during his lifetime was solemnized according to Nyishi custom in the year 1989. It was observed by the Court that as per Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945 (Regulation of 1945 for short) recognizes the Village authorities and empowers the Village authorities i.e., Gaonburah and Head Gaonburah for determination of civil dispute as well as criminal offences amongst the tribesmen. 20. Section 40 of the Regulation of 1945 provides that the Village authority has jurisdiction to decide all kinds of civil disputes. It was held that in the present case, the Village authority of Raga Headquarter, including Raga-I and Raga-II, have certified the plaintiff No. 1, Smt. Rotom Yama, (appellant) as separated from late Gocham Taga in the year, 2010 due to a dispute kindled by Smt. Rotom Yama, and she never returned or restarted her conjugal life with Gocham Taga, and she married Dorjee Khandu and was staying with him as husband and wife. 21. It is reiterated that this certificate was marked as Exhibit P.Ex-B(2). It was observed by the Court that this certificate was not disputed by the appellant. The learned Trial Court held that the certificate issued by the Village council was signed by 33 villagers including family members of late Gocham Taga, PI, Raga Headquarter and ZPM, Raga. It was also held that the certificate was signed by Page No.# 11/18 the Village authorities consisting of three head Gaonburahs and two Gaonburahs who are recognized as Village authorities under the Regulation of 1945. It was also observed that as the marriage between late Gocham Taga and the appellant was solemnized as per Nyishi traditional customs, their divorce also has to be performed through their traditional customs and usages. It was held that the Village authorities, who are experts in their customary laws and traditions had certified that the appellant and late Gocham Taga got separated in the Year, 2010 and since then, the appellant had not returned and she got married to another person. 22. This certificate, much disputed by the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant was accepted as a valid certificate by the learned Trial Court, and it was held that the marriage between the appellant, Rotom Yama and her husband Gocham Taga was thus dissolved and nullified. It was also held that the evidence of DW2, Sri Gocham Tamen, elder brother of late Gocham Taga and DW3, Smt. Gocham Yama, elder sister of late Gocham Taga, substantiated the pleadings and the evidence of DW1. Both DW2 and DW3 have supported and corroborated the evidence of DW1 that Rotom Yama was separated from late Gocham Taga in the Year, 2010 and thereafter, Gocham Taga, during his lifetime married Tsering Dekey in the Year, 2012. The Gocham family has also accepted the separation between the appellant and late Gocham Taga and they have accepted Tsering Dekey as the wife of Gocham Taga as he married her in the Year, 2012. 23. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant has emphasized through his argument that the Trial Court ought not to have accepted the affidavit of marriage dated 22.10.2018 exhibited by the defendant. 24. It is true that the Trial Court has not accepted the School certificate and the Page No.# 12/18 Birth certificate of PW3, the Driving license and the Bank Passbook of late Gocham Yama as reliable evidence establishing the marriage between Rotam Yama and Gocham Taga. In that case, how could the same Court accept an affidavit of marriage executed on 22.10.2018, and a representation by the Gocham family dated 18.01.2020. There is not even a scintilla of evidence to prove the alleged marriage between Gocham Yama and Dorjee Khandu and without any documents or proof, the learned Trial Court has erroneously accepted that the appellant got married to a person named as Dorjee Khandu. 25. The contradictory evidence of DW1 clearly reveals that she was not married to Gocham Taga in the Year, 2012. She was staying with Gocham Taga from 2012 and she got married to Gocham Taga in the Year, 2018 which is clearly admitted by DW1 in her cross-examination. How could the Court accept the validity of marriage between late Gocham Taga and Tsering Dekey in the Year, 2012 when the witness herself deposed as DW1 that she legally got married to Gocham Taga in the Year, 2018? On the basis of this contradictory evidence, how could the Village Council on an ex-parte order declare that the appellant deserted Gocham Taga in the Year, 2010 and thereafter remarried a person named Dorjee Khandu, when the defendant herself deposed as DW1 that since 2010, Gocham Taga was staying alone whereas, the appellant married one, Dorjee Khandu in the Year, 2014 and not in the year 2010? Within the period of 2010 to 2014, what was the status of marriage between Rotom Yama and Gocham Taga? Was their marital status still existent? Respondent No. 1 and Gocham started staying together from 2012 during the subsistence of marriage between Gocham Taga and Rotom Yama. Their marriage was dissolved by the Village authority after the demise of Gochom Taga in the Year, 2024. Can this be a valid decision? Admittedly Page No.# 13/18 respondent No. 1 got married to Gocham Taga in the Year, 2018. Can this be a valid marriage when the marriage between Rotom Yama and Gocham Taga was not even dissolved or nullified? It is not even clear in Annexure-6 when the appellant got married to another person named Dorjee Khandu. Without proper hearing and with recording the time and place, the Annexure-6 issued by the Village authority marked as Ext. P-Ex.B(2) cannot be held to be a valid document moreso, when it has not been recorded if any summon was issued or any summon to the appellant was notified fixing a date for appearance and hearing. If such steps are taken, her absence cannot invalidate Ext. P.Ex.B(2). However, the order vide Annexure-6 was passed ex-parte, without hearing the appelant. 26. It is argued that on the basis of conjectures and surmises, the learned Trial Court held the marriage between the respondent No. 1 and late Gocham Taga during his lifetime as valid marriage, without the marriage between the appellant and late Gocham Taga being nullified in accordance with law. I find force in this argument by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant. It is pertinent to mention at this juncture that as the prime respondent, Tsering Dekey has not been represented, there was no argument submitted on her behalf whereas, the learned Counsel Mr. T. Gyatso appearing for the children of the appellant has conceded with the argument on behalf of the appellant. 27. I have carefully scrutinized Annexure-6 of the appeal memo at (Page-140). No date is recorded in the certificate issued by the Village authorities. It is apparent from the contents of the certificate, that the certificate was issued after Rotom Yama filed an objection against the petition for succession filed by Tsering Dekey and the Village authority had issued the certificate stating that Rotom Yama is falsely claiming the benefits of late Gocham Taga who passed away on Page No.# 14/18 24th August, 2020 and she is not entitled to the service benefits of late Gocham Taga as Tsering Dekey is the legal wife of late Gocham Taga and she is entitled to claim the service benefits of late Gocham Taga. 28. This certificate is not issued by a Kebang/Keba, and although the learned Court held that civil disputes are resolved by the Village authority, there is a procedure to resolve civil disputes by a Kebang/Keba. Not a single date of Kebang/Keba is mentioned in the certificate. Although the Trial Court has held that P.Ex-B(2) has not been disputed, the cross-examination of DW1 Clearly reveals that the Village authority’s certificate was disputed by the appellant. In fact, DW1 testified that she is not aware if P.Ex-B(2) is a valid document. It has to be borne in mind that the validity of the marriage between respondent No. 1 and Gocham Taga has been questioned by the appellant as well as the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 through their pleadings. Thus the observation of the learned Trial Court that the certificate, Ext.P.Ex-B(2) has not been disputed is not correct. The Gocham family has indeed accepted the respondent No. 1 as the legally married wife of Gocham Taga, but DW2 and DW3, Sri Gocham Tamen and Smt. Gocham Yama, siblings of late Gocham Taga have stated that there is no documentary evidence of marriage between respondent No. 1 and Gocham Taga. 29. The respondent No. 1 has relied on an affidavit to prove her marriage with Gocham Taga. 30. Now the question that falls for consideration is that whether this affidavit of marriage can be considered to be a valid document to prove the validity of marriage between Gocham Taga and Tsering Dekey i.e., respondent No. 1. A representation dated 18.01.2020 was made by the Gocham family and the respondent No. 1 has also relied on this representation to prove the validity of her marriage with Gocham Taga. Page No.# 15/18 31. It is discernible that the learned Trial Court has decided the issue No. 1 in favour of the respondent No. 1 because the appellant has been staying separately from late Gocham Taga since 2010. Will this separation or alleged desertion suffice to nullify the marriage between the appellant and late Gocham Taga? 32. The affidavit executed between the respondent No. 1 and late Gocham Taga during his lifetime before the Executive Magistrate is marked as P.Ex-A(i). Can this affidavit be considered to be a reliable document to prove the validity of marriage between the respondent No. 1 and late Gocham Taga in the year 2018? The date of the marriage affidavit is 22.10.2018 and it was executed in presence of the Executive Magistrate and in presence of 2 witnesses who have affixed their signatures on the affidavit i.e., Land Settlement Officer and working President of District Congress Committee, West Kameng. The balance of convenience tilts in favor of the appellant as it is an admitted fact that the marriage between the appellant and late Gocham Taga during his lifetime was solemnized according to the customary rights of the ‘Nyishi’ community. A marriage affidavit is not a valid piece of evidence until and unless a marriage is registered in the Office of the Marriage Officer. 33. It could be culled out from the evidence and the pleadings that the marriage between the respondent No. 1 and the appellant was not even solemnized according to the customs and traditions of the ‘Nyishi’ community. 34. The learned Trial Court has held that the appellant has contended that the marriage between respondent No. 1 and late Gocham Taga was not solemnized under any customary law nor was the marriage registered under any Act and as such the respondent No. 1 cannot be considered as the wife of late Gocham Taga to inherit his debts and securities. It is evident that the Gocham family had Page No.# 16/18 filed a representation to support their stance that the respondent No. 1 has been accepted as the wife of Gocham Taga as she got married to Gocham Taga on 22.10.2018 by executing a marriage affidavit. Through a representation and Exhibit, P.Ex-B(2), it was declared that the appellant had deserted Gocham Taga and she got married to another person named Dorjee Khandu. This fact has however not been proved through documents and this fact has been vehemently denied by the appellant along with her children. The appellant and her children as PWs- 2 and 3 have stated that the respondent No. 1 was never introduced as their stepmother or second mother to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by their father during his lifetime. 35. The learned Trial Court went ahead and relied on the passport marked as Exhibit, P.Ex-D(ii) as it was reflected that Smt. Tsering Dekey is the wife of late Gocham Taga. This is an erroneous view of the learned Trial Court. The marriage has been held to be a valid marriage on the strength of a passport reflecting the respondent as wife of Gocham Taga and on a certificate issued by the Village authority without holding a 'Kebang' or 'Keba' in deviation to the Regulation of 45. 36. In view of the foregoing discussions, it is held that neither the nullity or dissolution of the marriage between the appellant and Late Gocham Taga has been proved nor the validity of marriage between late Gocham Taga and respondent No. 1 has been proved, despite the fact that during his last few years, the respondent No. 1 was staying with Gocham Taga till his demise. 37. In the wake of foregoing discussions, it is held that Exhibit, P.Ex-B(2) and the affidavit, P.Ex-A(i) are not reliable documents to prove the marriage between the respondent No. 1 and Gocham Taga when the appellant has disputed the validity of marriage between the respondent No. 1 and Gocham Taga. Although, Page No.# 17/18 the Gocham family has accepted the respondent No. 1 as the married wife of late Gocham Taga and although the evidence depicts that the respondent No. 1 has been residing with Gocham Taga till the time of his demise, yet there is no evidence to prove the submission that the marriage between the appellant and late Gocham Taga was nullified or dissolved by a decree of divorce or by an order of divorce, despite the fact that they have been separated since 2010 for almost 10 years when unfortunately the deceased Gocham Taga died-in- harness. 38. In the wake of the foregoing discussions, it is thereby held that the appellant is entitled to her share of debts and securities in place of the respondent No. 1. On the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and in the wake of the foregoing discussions, it cannot be held that the marriage between the appellant and Gocham Taga was dissolved by a proper Village authority after proper hearing, although the Exhibit, P.Ex-B(2) was issued conjointly by 5 Gaonburhas and the Gaoburah of Raga including the Gocham Family. 39. The decision of the learned Trial Court that the succession certificate cannot be issued in connection with family pension is upheld. 40. It has been correctly held that pension does not come within the definition of debts and securities and within the purview of succession certificate. The concerned Department is to consider the issue relating to the family pension as per Central Service Pension rules. 41. The order of the District Judge dated 14.10.2024 in connection with Succession T.S. Case No. 02/2023 is slightly modified and it is held that in place of the respondent No. 1, Smt. Tsering Dekey; the appellant-Smt. Rotom Yama is entitled to inherit the debts and securities left behind by late Gocham Taga in Page No.# 18/18 equal shares along with Shri Timi Gocham and Shri Sakter Gocham (children of Smt. Rotom Yama and late Gochom Taga) and in equal shares along with Smt. Yemi Gocham (mother of late Gochom Yama). The debts and securities are to be divided equally @25% each between the appellant and the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. 42. The succession certificate is to be issued in favour of the appellant accordingly. 43. No order as to costs. 44. Send back the Trial Court Records. JUDGE Comparing Assistant