IN THB HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUREAT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH e.Snritt CIVIL REVSION No. 1°^ /2005 APPLICANT Dasharath Prasad S/o Hulas aged about 60 Years R/o Durga Mandu', Labour colony, Khursipar, Bhilai, Tah. and Distt. Durg (C.G.). VERSUS ITON-APPLICANT t^y:.^- ^x.^^ r***'_ "k -•**' .s^€^ ^'... ^^.-•"" vss^' / Kumar Satriami R/o Modem Town in front of Mandir Cement Shop Distriet- Durg (C.G.) •l..- CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 384 (3) OF INDIAN SUCCESSION ACTREAD WITH SECTIONYlS OF CFVIL PROCEDURE CODE XI-HC-78 di"ci-<<ioiwti,u>-CTl'(i<is,Rrti'<iy'< /'J *fl*lriiapqT^ ""'"•"^•/"""""""f"""""""Wl200 sn^STq^P ('3?tg6T5) an^STwifi'fi* <rai3n^<T**<i* S^ITm^lfttTOT^ST 16-09-2005 Shri R.S. Shrivastavj; Heard on, adinissionj This Civil Revision dated 27-07-2005 passe{ Judge, Durg in Misc. CH|il arose out of Succession G4 IIInl CivU Judge Clas4 13-05-2003. Brief facts are th4 22-07-2001. She had Ac4, Bhilai with a deposit of| deposit vide Samruddhi D^ Rs. 20,135/- m Dena ^ applicaat made an appUc^ ludiaa Succession Act fof accoiuit for issuaace of sut aboveiaentioned am.ount. Keja Bai was his wife. Learued counsel fij eonteuded fhat the Court^ successioa certificate for 1 <bWfd<S1'l llfdT^'l^'d '(l"i«;i't ^3iRl*igii^?i ^., Counscl for fhe applicant. fl is directed agaiast the order B. bv the Additional District Appeal No. 17/2004 which ^se No. 79/2001 passed bv the hl, Durg vide order dated it one Keja Bai expired on |ount No. 3040 in Khursipar, Rs. 20,979.05 aiid aaofher ^posit Receipt No. 1985626 for iarLk, Khursipar, Bhilai. The ition under section-372 of fhe receiving fhe amouats in fhe ;cession certificate towards the [The applicant contended that |r tbe appUcant has mainly below have erred in. graiituig |he aiiiounts 'raentioned above ^> -A<- I!!'u!'[TTI'^;'S?"';-"ls!i XI-HC-78 *fWW'SBW tjTO) ^W<fii, unfl'd^s, fi«i'(ia'< ^:.J^^S... c; sg^iwfti'ti* otfl3II^?TSFHW 3I7^?TtR?P (ijciig'l.g) ^F^200 -applice|nt in favour of the non-; no relationship with the dec^ I have perused the re[ of Dashrath Prasad inade H is clear-cut adinission by th( in para-4 fhat his inarried w|: chUdren froia his legaUy inst stated that Keja Bai was inarriage, yet fhere was no. s| The applicaat has ia his nowhere refuted the clairii Satnami. I have also gond Kuinar Satnaini. The namle Satnami also finds place Receipt as a joint depositor. Learaed counsel for tt| been able to m.ake out the Prasad yet he has niade axi fhe issuance of'succession] non-applicant Kuniar Sata^ wifh the law. (bWfd'S'l tll^dT'fffeicl •(luit^K ^3rf^T3Tlt?I Kuniar Satnaini who had ased Keja Bai. 'ord and also the stateinent lefore fhe lower Coiirt. There applicaat Dashrath Prasad life was stiU alive and he had jrried wife. Alttiough, he had yis wtfe by Churi systeiu of (aeci&c pleaduig to fhis effect. test|lmony before the lower Court of non-applicaat Kuniar through fhe testimony of of non-applicaut Kuinar |ia the Samniddhi Deposit e applicaat, fhough, has not case ia favour of Dashrath abortive effort to areue fhat certificate ia favoiir of the uni was not m accordance _L ^ ^ l,.^<ri .^•!»|''q|A|)rt<<,y'Tll'<1<|to,Rl«!<!iy'< c^.^3]:Q5 HWdlSFTT^ """•""•"••"""""""""" SlT^STqgq; ('i?fg<R?) an^sT^TR'li* ?T8iT3n^T**ii* concurt'ent lu view of fhe fhe Courts below, fhe adn4; beforc fhe lower Court above, this Revision is devoji add <h|i|fd41'< <<l*lriTI(Is><Il •(RttSlt iSaiRlf SII^'CT finding recorded by both ission m.ade by fhe applicant also fhe facts nientioned Id ofsubstaiice. Accordiagly, fhis Re^isiou is disniissed at raotion Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukil Judge 1^s'^'^-^