IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.929 of 2010 Shiv Narayan Yadav, Son of Late Hari Yadav, resident of Village- Lodipur, P.S. Sheikhpura, District-Sheikhpura ------- ( Opp.Party 2nd Set) ------------- Appellant Versus 1. Asharfi Devi Wife of Late Baleshwar Yadav, resident of Village-Lodipur, P.S. Sheikhpura, District- Sheikhpura ------- (Appellant) 2. Devnandan Yadav, Son of Late Baleshwar Yadav 3. Sabitri Devi 4. Sumitari Devi 5. Bimali Devi 6. Nirmala Devi All daughters of Late Baleshwar Yadav. Respondent nos.2 to 6 residents of Village- Lodipur, P.S. Sheikhpura, District-Sheikhpura -------- (Opp.Party 1st set) 7. Sahdev Yadav 8. Prasidh Yadav, both sons of Late Hari Yadav Residents of Village-Lodipur, P.S. Sheikhpura, District- Sheikhpura ----- ( Opp.Party 2nd Set) ----- Respondents. ---------------------------------- 02 14-10-2011 Heard Sri Bharat Lal, learned counsel for the appellant. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act against a Succession Certificate, which has been granted by the learned Addl. District Judge, F.T.C. III, Civil Court, Sheikhpura by an order dated 31.08.2010 in favour of Respondent no.1 for the purposes of withdrawal of deposited amount in the account of her husband, namely, Baleshwar Yadav lying in the State Bank of India, Sheikhpura Branch. Short fact of the case is that the husband of Respondent no.1 was a government teacher and after retirement he had received retiral dues and the same was deposited in the State Bank of India, Sheikhpura Branch in the account of her husband vide Account 2 no.73 / 30688. After the death of her husband, the Respondent no.1 with a view to withdraw the said amount from the account of her husband filed a petition for succession certificate vide Succession Certificate Case no.2 of 2001. In the said case, the Respondent no.1 had impleaded her son and daughters as Opp. Parties. However, the appellant, who was brother of the husband of Respondent no.1 and other brothers of her husband, filed a petition for intervention for being impleaded as party in the succession certificate case. The prayer was allowed by the learned court below on 23.09.2002. During the enquiry, the Respondent no.1 and her son and daughters were examined as witnesses and all the witnesses made categorical statement that the husband of Respondent no.1 was living separately from his all other brothers. The amount deposited in the Bank, i.e. to the tune of Rs.2, 06,335.25 was the amount received by her husband as his retiral dues since he retired as a government teacher. It further appears from the impugned order that one of the brothers of the appellant, namely, Sahdev Yadav in his cross-examination had denied that all the brothers had partitioned since long and after partition he had executed sale deed in the year 2002 to one Aasho Yadav and similarly another brother Prasidh Yadav had also executed a sale deed in the year 2002 to one Chandni Devi. In his cross examination, which is evident from paragraph-9 of the impugned order, he had admitted that all the brothers were living separately in separate house. The contention of the Respondent no.1, her son and daughters on the point that the husband of Respondent no.1 was living separately was further substantiated from the 3 statement one of the brothers of her husband, namely, Sahdev Yadav, as indicated above. Moreover, after going through the materials on record, it is evident that sufficient materials were brought before the court below for being substantiated that the amount, for which Certificate was sought for, was received by the husband of the Respondent no.1 as retiral dues and, as such, while granting succession certificate in favour of Respondent no.1 after taking no objection from the son and daughters of Respondent no.1 the Court is of the opinion that the learned court below has committed no error . Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present appeal, the Appeal stands dismissed. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)