HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU ^ Nl*BN^' Sinale Bench : Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Civil Revision No.119 of 2007 Smt. Kamla Bai versus Smt. Kirti Sahu and others . ORDER Postfor 2^-11-2008 Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge N HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench : Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Civil Revision No.119 of 2007 Applicant Respondents Smt. Kamla Bai, Wd/o Late Narayan @ Narad Sahu @ Narad Sahu, aged about 50 years, R/o Basantpur Ward No.40, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) versus 1. Smt. Kirti Sahu, W/o Narayan Lal Sahu, aged about 51 years, Occupation House-Work, R/o Village Jangalpur, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2. Devendra Kumar Sahu, aged about 25 years, S/o Narayan Lal Sahu 3. Kaushal Kumar Sahu, S/o Narayan Lal Sahu, aged about 24 years 4. Sunita, D/o Narayan Lal Sahu, aged about 22 years 5. Manisha, D/o Narayan Lal Sahu, aged about 20 years All Resident of Village and Post Jangalpur, Tahsil Dongargaon, District.Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 6. Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh Electricity Mandal, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Civil Revision under Section 384(3) of the Indian Succession Act Present: Shri Goutam Khetrapal, counsel for the applicant. Shri Anup Majumdar, counsel for non-applicants No.1 to 5. Shri Vinod Deshmukh, counsel for non-applicant No.6. ORDER (Passed on this 2^"" day of November, 2008) This civil revision is directed against the order dated 22-08- 2007 passed by the District Judge, Rajnandgaon in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.3/2007, whereby the application for issuance of succession certificate (Succession Case No. 10/2002) filed by the applicant Kamla Bai was dismissed while the application for issuance of succession certificate (Succession Case No.6/2002) filed by non- applicants No.1 to 5 was allowed. (2) Brief facts giving rise to the filing of Succession Case No.6/2002 and Succession Case No. 10/2002 are thatone Narayan Sahu, an employee of the Chhattisgarh Electricity Board died a suicidal death on 18-03-2001. Kamla Bai filed an application for issuance of succession certificate (Succession Case No. 10/2002) as the widow of the deceased. Nominee of the deceased, i.e., the non- applicant No.1 Kirti Sahu and her children also filed an application for issuance of succession certificate (Succession Case No.6/2002) on similar grounds. In support of the application, thenon-applicants filed a certificate issued by the Collector that the non-applicant No.1, Kirti Sahu was the widow of the deceased and non-applicants No.2 to 5 were her children from the deceased and thus they were entitled to a succession certificate. This certificate was issued after a preliminary enquiry conducted by the Tahsildar, Dongargaon. A certificate Ex.D- 19 issued by the Gram Panchayat Jangalpur was also fjled to substantiate the case ofthe non-applicant No.1 that she is the legally married wife of Narayan Sahu. In the application filed in Succession Case No. 10/2002, the applicant Kamla Bai did not pray for issuance of a succession certificate for her daughter Sangeeta. It was also not mentioned in the application that Sangeeta was born out of the wedlock between the applicant Kamla Bai and the deceased Narayan V Sahu. No documentary proof of marriage with the deceased was adduced by the applicant Kamla Bai. (3) It is not in dispute that Narayan Sahu had nominated the non- applicantNo.1, Kirti Sahu for receiving the retiral benefits after his death. (4) Shri Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the applicant argued that finding recorded by the lower appellate Court in paragraph 26 of the impugned order is erroneous because document Ex.D-2 evidencing Chorchutti between the deceased and Kamla Bai is an unsigned document. On the other hand, he also argued that if the document was to be relied on, it. established that before Chorchutti Kamla Bai was the legally married wife of the deceased. It was also argued that a succession certificate in the name of Sangeeta, daughter of the deceased born to the applicant Kamla Bai should at least have been granted. On the other hand, Shri Anup Majumdar, counsel for non-applicants No.1 to 5 and Shri Vinod Deshmukh, counsel for non-applicant No.6 argued in support of the impugned order. (5) Having considered the rival submissions, 1 have perused the record. Kamla Bai has, in her testimony on oath, admitted the fact that she was living separately from the deceased since 10 years prior to his death. As regards the prayer for inctusion of the name of Sangeeta in the succession certificate in the application filed in Succession Qase No.10/200^ the applicant Kamla Bai did not pray for issuance of a succession certificate for her daughter Sahgeeta. It was also not mentioned in the application that Sangeeta was born out of the wedlock between the applicant Kamla Bai and the deceased Narayan Sahu. The evidence adduced by the non-applicant No.1, oral as well as documentary, proves that she is the widow of the deceased. The document Ex.D-2 is inadmissible in evidence since it is an unsigned document. The argument that since it evidences Chorchutti between the deceased and Kamla Bai it also establishes that the applicant Kamla Bai was the legally married wife of the deceased does not help the applicant in any manner because if the document has to be relied on it has to be read in its entirety. If on the basis of the document a conclusion has to be drawn that the applicant Kamla Bai was legally married to Narayan Sahu then it also follows from it that there was a Chorchutti between the two as per custom prevalent in the community. The admission on oath by Kamla Bai that since 10 years she was living separately from Narayan Sahu also substantiates this. 1 am of the considered opinion that the document Ex.D-2 deserves outright rejection from consideration because it is an unsigned document. The burden of proving that the applicant Kamla Bai was the legally married wife of the deceased Narayan Sahu has not been discharged by the applicant. In her cross-examination in paragraph 16, she admitted that at her marriage, Tulsi, her father Agnuram, Chaitu, Itwari, Ganesh and Mehtar were present. None of the witnesses, who were present at the time of marriage, were examined by the applicant before the trial Court. i V. (6) In this view of the matter, 1 am of the considered opinion that the refusal to grant succession certificate in favour of the applicant and the grant of succession certificate in favour of the non-applicants by the Ist Civil Judge, Class-1, Rajnandgaon in Succession Case No. 10/2002 and Succession Case No.6/2002 is founded on proper appreciation ofevidence, oral as well as documentary and was rightly affirmed by the District Judge, Rajnandgaon by the impugned order dated 22-08-2007. No such illegality or jurisdictional error, as would warrant any interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, is seen in the impugned order. The civil revision, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. | Sd/- 1 Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge zV-11-2008 Gopal