":®;@:S%liiill^' ^IP^Iifili;i!JIII@BiiiiSI^^ 1 JUZiICATX?^E, ^T BHASPUR eivil-Kevisioa No* 4>" /06 APPLICANTS € ^- \fc^"...- r?i .^* L^' ^l < Kirtibala, aged about 32 years, /3. Heniant Kumar ag^l 28 years 3. Ramant Kuinar aged 25 years ^ All daughtcr and sons of Latc Shri Yashwant Smgh, R/o Near Baudli Bilim-, Sadliu Clial, Tulsipm', Rajnaiidgaon, Distt Rainanadgaon, Viaila Bai^ about 55 years ^" wiclow of La:te YaBhwaiit. Siogh R/o Tah- Diatt. Rajiiaiigaon CIVXLPROCBDIIRB _^'_ _ _ <-<" the dated 13,2.2006 passecl by A.D,J. ^^" in C.S. No. 2-A/05) XI-HC-22 W^'^1 f^rN'^TT^T '^RN'^ritn ~F A.-.,.f-^ ,^^^SS5S—a -^-^ '^TraT^p?, WTftwR, f^i'Riy _....C^.i.l...&..^.no ^ "l ^ b- ^.....-^..v...........-....-...-.........^ ^ ^TI^T'^nwHf^ 05.04.2006 ^jccejssson Shri BP Supta,counself^r None for non-appti'cant Heard on admission and Yashwant Slngh was an| his death. the daim of non-o^j was opposed by the appjjcaiitt foi" production of applicant/plaintiff and grant of succession certificat^ 6/99. Both -Hie appiicstions / Chss 1. Khairagarh, vide order| the application of non-cyplioanf the tegaliy wedded wife of ^ the o^plication of applicants|/ deceased froin h Is first wifel Non-dppJicant/plaintjff chalbrjged appeols and the appejJGte order dated 29.10.2004.. Th regarding her marriage to f^r the qppjiants. appjic^nts/defendants Cotjiri- <^l^f<n4l'1 'WT^ff ^ 'fe^t Tf^R^R ^ ^rTJ^m 3TT^T ^(C.)P.No.496/2006. empSoyee in Forest Department. After ^plicont to receive his retrial benefits, i, -riierefore/the DepQrtment directed <^rtificate< Hence, non- filed opplications for ^ beanng succession ca^ No.11/99 ond |?ere heard <md decided by Civil Judge, dated 16.08.2002. The Court rejected I'/pbintiff on the ground that she js not deceased Ycxshwoint Singh and aliowed 'defendants who are chstdren of ttse Hem Kumari who died on 14/01/1996. both tiie orders byfilmg separate dismls^d bo-Hi these appeals yide icrefore/ describing coinplete details |be vdid a^^dso retying on nomination !:?iji'-!"y.^E-.: XI-HC-22 -s^•-^^m, ^fe!i%. ^RT^ W^I^T'^W^' '"m 2c :3TI^?^7 ^^ 3??t^[ ^RW^t^T 31T^T ^T^R ^TtN deciarbtion <jm [made by -Hie deceased Yashwant 5) laiuse of action o.rose for the suit to| Iwhich her both ths appeals we.re. di the applicants/defendGnts for 1 declaring her marr'Gge with Yashwo^t Igrant pf succession ^rtiflcate in I void and further con^quential Applicants/defendonts fi!ed Rule. 11 <& 12 read with Section 151 o|l barred and bfirred-by the prindple| Court after hearing both -Ae disputss on raerit dismissed ^th^ 13/12/2006 passed in Civil Suit aggr'ieved by •the impugned order Section 115 of ths Code of Ciyil Counse! for Ifie applicants the suit was barred by !aw of I) therefore, •1+ie plairit was liable to 11 of the Code of Civjl Procedure. ngh in her favour cbiming the bs 29.10.2004 i.e.., the date on ilsmissed, she filed a suit aQainst obll'asning decree of decSaration, Singh valid, the order albwing fo|vour of appjicants to.be null ond •^Tfef^-Rl^^ fe^ iN^^ ^ 3i^w ^ii^r '': ' ^ applicatbn under Order VH o|f the CPC aHeging the suit time of res-judi'cata. Learned trial p4rties without adjuclicating fhe o^plication vide order dated No. 2-A/2005. Ths applicants h<|ive preferred this revision under ProcMurs. cor|tended that from plaint averment imitatiQn <a\d law of succsssion, b^ rejected under Order VII Rule + .[^^fen XI-HC-22 :^'^TS4R^.'®^NTi%.T^iTey. '^'i^^lf WW^ •'^ 20S 37?^T-^S t^'?N>.'B^T ^HNT^f^f ^rr^f ^m^c ^fin ^Prf^^f 'R1^g ^ -fezt -tf^R ^T'3?f^[ ^TI^T Sections 383 (e) snd 387 of jt+ie Indian Succession Act 1925 10'sencsforl+i "the Act") reads as tt383.- Revacatian af cerl^ficate^ A certifi^sl^ givintec/under thiSPartma^ ihe folhwing cause^ namel^ (a) xxxxx xxxxx^ ^b}xxy^^ X3fxx?e ^ (c) soooeKKxxxx x^ (d), xxxxx xxxxx x^xxx (e} ^jat a' ckcrse competent Courtm asuito^ f^spect to effect^cQmprf^ig speafiedmlhe certificate\ the certifi^ste ^auld be Ni 387. "Effect of deasion\ iicibWly of hofder fff c€rtif\ cfecf^fon under fhf^ Partup^ between any parties ^hall 1\ ^ be revoked forsany of 'XXXX WXX •XXX ?r ardsr mac/e by a offier proceedingwifh debts or s^cuntfe^ renders itproper Iffaf wked ? unskr Ihss Act, and ^cats there under^ No n any questfan ofnght e held fp bar the trisl of fhe same yuestion in a^y fftjft or in any ofher proceedfng be+ween the sai^e parttes/cmd nofhing in itiss Part shafl be coi^trued to affect the liabi/ity of cmy persem who\ or cmy part ofemycleht or ^cuHty, or cx^y fnferest ar dividend on any ^cun+^ to 1heperson iQwfullyentJt^d 'ttfereta,fl maytvsceive the whok to accaunt Iherefore + [^.^f^ XI-HC-22 ;T^ --q!^n,^^T^. 't^W 3Tr^^T fN^^§¥T ^m^'ffi^r ^sra^iT-^Ni^ '^, 200 •^^y' ^i^f^^lTW^IN hjis l^galjy from conjoin re^ding of the abo| declsion on any question'of right betweeF tria! of same question in any suit oj the same parties, Hsre in the inst<s|i that the pjaintiff/non-Q^pJicant certificate as die being not Yashwant Singh by the Court whifel eertificate, yet p!ajntiff/non-cppSi4ant questlon against the app licants proceedings, by fiting asuit and th<^t she Section 14(1), Articles 58 are reSevdnt provisiQns applioable bebw^ 0; a4d "14. Exclusion of time of without JurJsdiction.- (1) linirtation for any surt ttye has been prosecuting pro<^edirig, whellier in a oppeal or revision, excluded, where the maft'er in issue and is which, frohi defect of jui Jike nature/isuriabJe t& en ^S<LS?<r{4lv< 'Hi'H^f ^ fe^ ^f^^ ^a^-H^T^? /e provisions/it is tn<snife3t 1+iat right between any ^arties shatt riot bar the in any other proceeding between it case though it has besn decided no right to obtain succession married wife of decea^d decidihg the grant of successioh has right to raise 1+ie ^sme were parties tp the successlon .djd.. . :;•••,•,•••. :,.-:' 59 of the Limitation Act. 1963 1+ie present case which read as [irocesding bona fide in Court |in computing the psriod of |ime during which the pifaintiff wi"^h due diligence onol+ier ciyil Court of first instance or of a^ain^t the defendont shaii be proijeedjng relates to tfie ^ime pros^cuted in good fosith (n a Court jur|sdiction or other oous^ of a tfertajn it/' •. •.[^^feq. X.I-HC-22 371^1^1 f^w 3;n^? ^RW^fi^ Z-^ '•=^RT<?R, 'g^W?. T^irey W^^l ^Rl^- "^T, 200 'l^^" PART HI -SUITS RELATEN^ TO DECL.ARA'riONS &escription pfsuf't 58. To obtain any other declaration 59. To cance! or set aside COT instrument or decree or for 1+ie rescission of a contract Perted of Threeye4rs Three y^xrs Admittedly nQn-c^plicant/pla obtainsuccession certificate on -tH Court dealing with the matt-er of the ground that she is not the legallj 1iie instoint suit has been filed 29/10/2004 when she lost her appeajl , -^N^FfrT •RT?^ftfe^ TN^R '^^^T^Ht^T iimitottion , Time from which period begins to c -run. When the right t6 sue first accrues. When the facts entjtdng the piaintr'ff to^ have 1+ie instrument or decree can<»lledor ^t aside or the controct rescinded first become knoMm tohim. (ntiff when she lo$t her cldm to -ttje death of yashwflait Singh, by g|<ant of succession certiftcate bn jf wedded wife of yashwosntSinsh, c(Gim|ig cause of action to be arisen on t [xit^i[fe^ -^^- •'^-^ XI-HC-22 -s^ •^R:R, ^Jten^. ^RTraS? 'W^1a%W%' <3??^T'^[ 'f^i^'STji^T ^iweti^' The word "instrument" is no-t 1963, 1+ierefor®.from o1+»er Ireferred in Artiete 59 of-the Liml ArtlcSe 59 prescribes period of li?f jcan^Kati'on of .instrument or decl [Coffimonly "instrument" contemplatej or lidblJity is or purports to be extended, extinguishejd or recorded- Indian Stamp Act aid Notaries Act |by tohich any right or liGbility is |troffisferred, (imited, extended pnstruments. Succsssion Certificate |n Schsduie V33I of the Act, whichl fwow it is issued to cojlect de| finstrument" as contempjcted under ^parentJy it coyers the Succession Cj Section 9 ofCode of Civi! fhe SGme read as beJow: 9. Courts to try all dvi Courts shaff (subject -I: cbl4i'(rl4t;:f -WTcff -^ ft^- if^R .iT3?Nn^¥T clefined in the Limitatiort Act, bs the mecuiing of "jnstrument" jtdtion Actis to be ascertairied. for instiluting suit for ^ee or rescission of contract a deeyment by which any right created, transferred, Jimited, .From definitjon contained in jaSso / it is cledr that documents or purports to be created, sxtinguished or recordec! are i^ gran+edln the Forms set forth empoweps the person in who^ |ts or ^curities. The term Art.59 has a wide meauiing and ^rtificate. and Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of Proc^dure suits unless barred.- The y the provisions herein T' [^^fOT XI-HC-2Z 31T^T'^t ^ri^^^i ^Hi^'^iin ' ^^^TRMq, ^^WT^ 't^?R?y -NR^IIWR-§'^ •^ ^^r'i'^n^R'^n contained) have jurisdictionj nature excepting suits of either expressly or impliedJy (Explanatlon I) - A suit in or to an office is contestecj notwithstGhding that such r| the cfecfsion of qu€Stions| <%remonies. (ExpSanation H) For the pi[ jmmoterial whether <?r not a^y office referred to in Exp(c^iati such office 1s attQched to aj to try all suits of d civll Iwhich their cogmzance is ! barred. |<vhich the right to, property is a suit of a c'tvil nature, feht mcsy depend entirely on as to nsligious rites or 11. Rejection of pSaint;- in the fottowing cases:- (a) xxxx xxxxx> (b) xxxx xxxx xx (c)xxxx xxxxx?| (d) where the suit app^ ^ne. plaint to be barred byojny jc^ From 1+ie pldtnt avermesnt it i^ ;ivil suit- instituted by the non-applic^ |any of the provisions of thelnd'ian is cQncerned,-Hie suit falls within th^ ^RFlfe^T 'Wf^Tf ^ fest ^f^R: ^ ^OT ^i^t |irposes of this section, it $s fees are atTached'to the ^iation I pr whether or pot particylarpbce.) JThe plaint shall bs rejected (XX KX ! 0<X kars from the statement in law" crystal cteQr that -the instant lic^nt/plaintiff is not barred under Suiccession Act, so far as limitation period of jimitation as a r^sult ~r ;[Tit^ ^fij^ XI-HC-22 t -^ ^i^I^R. '@^T?T5..^T5^ w^j'^II^NI^. "'W^'. .200 ^TiiST^T fc-l 'ST^T •^qiq=r^T^| Padma/ Ra^u ' 3T^T I^IT^R ^ttci of conjoin effect of ^ction 14 Limitation Act. Therefore, the Court Is neither expressly nor impj^ "TTie revision is liabte to be dismissed. In 14ie Jight of above IA No.124/2006 stand disposed of. |and Articles 58 & 59 of the c^gnizance of instant suit by civsl ipli^dly barred. dismisssd summariiy, hence it js order. M.(C.)P.No.496/2006 <& ^n ~ ~_^ Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge '^Flf^PTN TfPT^f ^ ^S I^^R '^^ri^m^T^i [^^ft^