C.R. No. 2511 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 2511 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.04.2010 Ishwar Singh .....Petitioner Versus Smt. Tarawati and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA Present:- Mr. H.N. Sahu, Advocate, for the petitioner. VINOD K.SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 19.1.2010, passed by the learned Courts below, vide which the application moved by respondents No.1 to 6 seeking succession certificate to claim benefits due to Jage Ram and further claiming that respondents No.2 to 6 were minor children of Jage Ram, was allowed. The learned Courts below, on appreciation of evidence, have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that respondent No.1 was proved to be widow of the deceased. This conclusion has been drawn on the basis of documentary evidence brought on record by way of school leaving certificate. The learned Courts below came to the conclusion, that even if one or two certificates are taken out of evidence, still there was sufficient evidence i.e. birth certificate of Sunil Kumar, which was of the year 1980 i.e. much prior to the death of Jage Ram. The learned Courts below also took note of the insurance policy, which was filled by Jage Ram, wherein respondent No.1 was shown to be the nominee as wife of the deceased. C.R. No. 2511 of 2010 (O&M) -2- The learned Courts below, therefore, rejected the contention raised by the petitioner that respondent No.1 was not widow of Jage Ram but that of Jot Ram. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner challenges the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the learned Courts below on the plea that as per pedigree table it would be seen that respondent No.1 was, in fact, widow of Jot Ram and not of Jage Ram. The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to three of the school leaving certificates, where the minors alleged to be sons of Jage Ram were shown to be sons of Jot Ram. However, learned Courts below, on appreciation of evidence, and also taking into consideration the contentions raised, have recorded a positive finding, that it was proved that Tarawati was the widow of deceased Jage Ram and, therefore, entitled to succession certificate. The findings cannot be said to be outcome of misreading of evidence. No ground is made out to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact recorded on appreciation of evidence, specially when the proceedings under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act are summary in nature. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge April 19, 2010 R.S.