M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision No. 121 of 2005 a AQQlicantsl 1. Smt. Saroj Sharma Wd/o Shri Gend ’ ial Sharma, aged about 52 years. Rajshekhar Diwan S/o late Gendlal Sharma, Aged about 31 years. 3. Sameer Diwan S/o late Gendlal Sharma, aged about 29 years. Sharad Diwan S/o late Gendlal Sharma, aged about 27 years. All R/o La'tingkala Mahasamund District Mahasamund (CG). ’ Versus 1. Smt. Usha Tiwari, W/o Shri Dinesh .Tiwari, aged about 36 years, R/o Village Jodhapur Tah. & Distt. Dhamtari (CG) Present Address : Mohla‘hata Road, Braminpara, “’2. Branch Manager, State Bank ofv Revision under Section 384 (3) of the lndian SuccessiOn Act 18ingle Bench: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwal, J4 Present : Shri YC Sharma with Shri Vivek Rathore, Advocates for applicants. 2. 4. Resgondents Bemetara, District Durg (CG). India, Dhamtarl (CG). Shri Adhiraj Surana, Advocate for respondent No. 1. ORDER (Passed on 8‘“ day of April, 2010) 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 28.01.2005, passed by the Additional District Judge, Dhamtari, in Civil Appeal No. 9N2004, affirming the order dated 11.07.2003 passed by the First Civil Judge Class-l, in Succession Case No. 03/2000, whereby and whereunder rejecting the objection raised by the applicants, the succession certificate has been granted in favour of non applicant No. 1 for the retiral dues of late DP Sha ma lying deposited with the w w \. ‘r respondent No. 2/State Bank of India, Dhamtari, the instant revision has been preferred. The brief facts of the caee as under : a..Undisputediy, deceased Gendiai Sharma was brother of deceased DP Sharma and appiicants are legai representatives of deceased Gendiai Sharma. Non applicant No. 1 is daughter ofvbrother Shiv Kumar Sharma. b. DP Sharma died issueiess on 01.03.1998. Based on nomination and Win-deed executed by late DP Sharma in her favour, the. non ’appiicant No. 1 applied for grant of succession certificate claiming retiral dues lying deposited with the respondent No. 2. c. The applicants objected to it. The trial court, on appreciation of evidencelled, material placed and submissions made by the parties, held deceased DP Sharma executed a Will-deed in favour of non applicant No. 1 and also nominated her as his nominee, and granted succession certificate in her favour. The above findings were affirmed by the first appellate court. Shri YC Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the applicants would contend that the trial court as well as the first appellate court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective and granted succession certificate in favour of non applicant No. 1 based on his appreciation of evidence, and thus, both the courts beiow have erred in granting succession certificate in her favour. \. fTndings recorded are perverse, this court should not interfere with the concurrent finding arrived at by both the courts below in l have heard the counsel eppearing for the parties, perused the order impugned and records of both the courts below. Shri YC Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the applicant could not point out/eny perversity in the findings recorded concurrently by both the courts below. The concurrent frndings recorded by both the courts biow unless are based on no evidence or are perverse, the same cannot be disturbed by this court under its revisionai jurisdiction under Section 115 of CPC. Moreover, the applicants in law are always free to pursue their remedy before the civil court for establishing their title over the amount in accordance with law. No order asto costs. nd is hereby dismissed. Sd/— N.K.Agarwal Judge eahu exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. ln view of above, since no jurisdictional illegality has been pointed out by the applicants, in the considered opinion of this court, the revision being devoid of substance is liable to be a