^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ft ;^ tl' CIVIL REVISION N0. K3_ /2003 APPLICANT Kumari Sumitra, D/o. Shri ^' Shivshankar aged about 19 years, caste-Gond, resident of village-Labjee, police station and Tah. Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (Chhattisgarh). VERSUS RESPONDENTS ...•^' /-•'<b^^ ^^-<?- -y k Tilkunwar, wife ofNot known (Budhram) aged about 27 years, Kumari Niyaso, daughter of Budhram, aged about 2 years (Minor) through ; her natural guardian, respondent No. 1 mother. ^ 3f Sukhminiya, widow of late Shri Reejhan, aged about 60 years, caste-Gond, All are residence of village — Labji, P.S. and Tah. Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (Chhattisgarh) CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECVTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 READ WITH SECTION 384 OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT. 1925. [-HC—78 ^ '3^'^nzfT^?^ ^TtiWl^/ fa<nwlf: ^im^iitbNicft . ^^. ^^J.^l'^.!^S "^laee- 'ST^T'^Tl^Nr ^I^T ^f^T'ii^?' 3ff^I ^^^ ('^13^^) I^TTW^f^i3?H^ ^T^NN ^R^ff ^ 'fe^ if^R '^'3lfeiW^T S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. AAarwal 12-11-20Q8 Shri Sushii Dubey, counsei i Shrl D.N. Prajapati, counseli Heard on admisslon. Feeiing aggrievsd by the Judge, (F.T.C.), Ambikapur-Surgujl dated 17-01-2003, the instant revisl The facts briefiy stated are a| )f the appjicant. br non-appijcants No. 1 & 2. >rder or Sjxth Addltional District in Misc. Cjvil Appeai No.8/2002 ^>n has been preferred. ^ under: Undisputedly, the responde^s are the legal representatives of deceased Budhram they have fi| suocession certificate Jn thelr favoi Amblkapur. The same was ri No.10/1998. Vide order dated 2€ granted succession certlficate in f2 the respondents. There against, the Nisc. A|?peal was preferred whjch was allowed by the First Appellate Cos only respondents are the repn are entitied for grant of successii ciajm of the applicant hence thls r@\ Learned counsel for the s ed an application for grant of before ths Civll Judge, Ciass-i, 'gjstered as Succession Case E-04-2002, the succession Court vour of the appdcant as w@!l as |rt and It has been h@!d that the ^sentatives of deceased Sudhram ^n certjficate and djsmissed the ision. |3piicant would sufomit that ths Appeiiate Court has wrongiy set asil the ground that the applicant is ne^t adopted daughter of Budhram. de the order of the trlat Court on —78 3?T^i ^T 'f^rNr ^^T^¥r^^ Kvr ^- '3%r ^TRT^R; ytft'M'is, fsxni^y G.^. /oo, /fc?-/'^^ ^PR'ff^W^l afl^T'^^C^I^^) ^<nw Trft^ 3??^r ^T^rth ^?T^f "^^^ 1(^^R ^T^RR3??^T courtsel He would further submit that the Fl- evldence recorded in the case ^ appiicant is adopted daughter ! have heard learned the order impugned and the recorc| As per the applicant's case( it is so, how the name of Shll appearlng in the schooi certjficatl appjjcant. Even j-n this petition, been shown as Shivshankar theref can be sald that the appiican| deceased. In view of the above, the rightly recorded Its finding and h< not an adopted daughter of the jllegaijty has been commltted by desen/es to be and is hereby dism) of ^udhram. trte rst AppeEEate Court overjooked the per which it is proved that the sel for the app!Icant and perused of the case. she was adopted by Budhram. if ^shanker as appjfcant3s. father Is ^, has not been expiained by the name of father of appiicant has fore, by no streteh of Imaglnation it was adopted daughter of the [earned First Appeljate Court has |s rightly held that the applicant Js |eceased. Since no jurisdjctlonaj iearned triai Court, the (ssed at the of admJssion.___ Sd/- N. K.Agarwal Judge tne ,,liIBfili^t%i^.,^mtW-l^^Sft?<«*^'c!!W*-^ s^