^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATnSGARHl ^ , ^ " ''••'•• f-7T~.^HU ..Si! ^J^ &C^<- 12007 PETITIONERS ^y^ l^ Ku. Aarti D/o Late Sitaram aged about 9 years, minor throgh the natural gurdian Radheshyam S/o Late Mathura Das, aged about 30 years (Petitioer No. 2) 2. Radheshyani S/o Late Mathura Das, aged about 30 years Both R/o Vill. - Nakna , P.S. 8s Tah. - Sitapur , Distt- Surguja (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS 1. 2. ^'' ^ Leelavati W/o Late Sitaram Das, age,d about 28 years. Ku. Puja D/o Sitaram Das, aged about 5 years, minor natural gurdian and respondent no. 1 Leelvati W/o Late Sitarani Das, aged about 28 years. Both R/o Vill.- 'Badgaon, P.S.& Tah. - Sitapur, Distt- Surguja (C.G.) Smt. Radha Devi W/o Late Mathura Das, aged about 60 years, R/o - Vill- Ncikna P.S. & Tah.- Sitapur, Distt- Surguja (C.G.) ^v ar^ 5-^ REVISION U/sTJS OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEEDURE. 1908 ^^ c<^^ l^ 3^^ C3^ ^ <3>^A'ou^ Su^^^^(9y( ^C-J(r . IS—^ A-^^IL ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Petitioners Respondents Civil Revision 54 of 2007 Ku.Aarti &Another Versus Leelavati & Others Revision under Section 115 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) Present : Shri Manoj Mishra, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Rahul Mishra, Advocate for the respondents. ORDER (Passed on 14th day ofJanuary, 2010) 1. The challenge in this revision is to the order of District Judge, Surguja at Ambikapur dated 29.03.2007 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 34/06, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioners and respondent No. 3 has been dismissed and order dated 03.11.2006 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-l Ambikapur, in Succession Case No. 03/04 granting succession certificate to collect the amount of retiral dues ofdeceased Sitaram lying deposit with government department in favour of petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 1 & 2 holding each entitled for 1/3rd share in the said amount, but setting aside the direction of keeping the shareof Ku. Aarti and Ku. Puja in the fixed deposit till their attaining the age of majority and directed to grant succession certificate in favour of respondent No. 1. 2. Shri Manoj Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the deceased Sitaram appointed Ku. Aarti as his nominee in the service record to collect his retiral dues after his death; Ku. Aarti is livingwith her grandparents and is not living with 1^ her mother Leelavati and therefore, the succession certificate ought to have been granted in favour of Ku. Aarti and thus both the courts below have erred in granting the succession certificate in favour of wife for herself and also on behalf of children. Per contra, Shri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that both the courts below have rightly held that Smt. Leelalavit is legally wedded wife.of deceased Sitaram and Ku. Aarti and Ku. Puja are their minor children and are entitled for grant of succession certificate. He would further submit that as per Section 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the mother is natural guardian of a Hindu minor in respect of the minor persons as well as in respect of the minor's property, and therefore, the court below has rightly passed the order and the revision deserves to be dismissed. 1 have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order impugned. It is not in dispute that out of two children Ku. Puja and Ku. Aarti, Ku.Aarti is living with her grandparents who are still maintaining her and Ku. Puja is living with Smt. Leelavati. It is also not in dispute that the application preferred by Smt. Leelavati for the custody of Ku. Aarti was dismissed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sitapur, vide its order dated 16.06.2004. Based on appreciation of evidence, it has been held by both the courts below that Leelavati is legally wedded wife of late Sitaram and Ku. Aarti-and Ku. Puja are legitimatechild i.e. daughters of Smt. Leelavati. In view of above factual finding of both the courts below that all the three persons are entitled for 1/3 share of aforesaid amotint is correct and does not call for any interference. 10. ^ ? Sahu At this stage, Shri Manoj Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that interest of minors may be protected so that the minors may get their share after attaining the age of majority and the District Judge went wrong in setting aside the direction issued by the Civil Judge, Class-1 to keep the amount payable to the minor in the fixed deposit titl attaining their age of majority and in directing to pay the same to the natural guardian Smt. Leelavati also on behalf of minors. On due consjderation of facts situation of the case, in the considered opinion of this court, the District Judge has exceed his jurisdiction in modifying the direction issued by the trial court. The direction issued by the trial court is equitable and deserves to be upheld. In view of the above, the order passed by the District Judge, Surguja at Ambikapur, is set aside to the extent it has modified the direction of the trial court to keep the share of minors in the fixed deposit titl attaining their age of majority and direction given by the trial court is restored and it is directed that the share of Ku. Aarti and Ku. Puja shall be kept in the fixed deposit with any nationalized Bank payable to them on attaining their age of majority and such fixed deposit receipt of Ku. Puja shall be handed over to Smt. Leelavati and receipt of Ku. Aarti shall be handed over to her grandfather who shall be responsible to hand over those receipts to the respective minors on attaining their age of majority. With the above direction/modification,'the revision is party allowed. No order asto cosls. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge