v Y IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION N0._^'^ OF 2007 ^ t PETITIONERS; ^ (Non-applicants) ^ 1. Smt. Saubhagyawati Patra, ^yw /^\7 / <^' ^' <^"' daughter of Shri S.K. Chand, Teacher, resident of Mahavir Para, Shwanipotna, bistrict Kalahandi (Orissa). 2. Ku. Pinky, aged about 10 years, daughter of Late S.R. Patra, a minor through her natural guardian AAother- Smt. Saubhagyawati Patra, resident of Mahavir Para, Bhawanipatnam (Orissa) Vs RESPONDENTS: /"(Applicant) ^ tt. Smt. Vidhunilnirt Patra, aged about 72 years, widow of Late Shri J.P. Patra, resident of Ward No.l, Gariyabandh, Raipur. 2. General Public. <'(?- •^P^l PO(< ' ' REVISION PETITION UNDER SECTION 388 (3) OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. 1908 ^^\ \^\'^» ^^ .^' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION No. 5 OF 2007 PETITIONERS (Non-applicants) RESPONDENTS (Applicant) "" Smt. Saubhagyawati & another VERSUS Smt. Vidhumati Patra & another REVISION UNDER SECTION 388 (3) OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT (Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) Present : Shri Kshitiz Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for respondent No. 1. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 27/09/2011) 1. The instant revision filed under Section 388 (3) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short 'the Act, 1925') is directed against the order dated 27.10.2006 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Gariyaband, Raipur in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 03/2006. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner/Saubhagyawati Patra is widow of late Satyaranjan Patra, Ku. Pinki is his daughter and respondenVSmt. Vidhumati Patra is his mother. Satyaranjan Patra died on 01.11.2000. hle was Assistant Ranger in Forest Department and was posted at Mahasamund at the time of his death. 3. Respondent/mother of deceased Satyaranjan Patra preferred a petition for issuance of succession certificate along with petitioner No. 2 under Section 372 of the Act, 1925, to receive retiral dues. The claim was resisted by the petitioners herein. The trial court granted succession certificate in favour of petitioner No. 1 holding -;^ •€^1 f'y^ s ^ ff that the widow is only entitled to get the pension and further hetd daughter of deceased will have title over the amount claimed by the petitioner No. 1. Respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal against the above order. The court below vide order impugned allowed respondents' appeal and directed for grant of succession certificate in favour of applicants as well as respondent with regard to the amount of Rs. 2,38,000/- lying deposit with the Forest Department. Hence this revision. Shri Kshitiz Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners herein would submit as per MP/CG Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976, the amount of death-cum-retirat gratuity js payable to petitioners only and the court below has committed jurisdictional illegality in atlowing respondent's appeal and in granting succession certificate also in her favour. On the other hand, Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Shipra Sengupta v. Mridul Sengupta & others , would submit the mother, being class-1 heir of deceased is also entitled for grant of succession certificate with regard to retiral dues of his son Satyaranjan Patra and the court below has not committed any illegality in passing the order impugned. 1 have heard the counsel appearing for the parties, perused the record of court below as well as order impugned. JT 2009 (10)SC 680 ";-^- ^. ^ |Nnm"l»IN"^ 8. Admittedly, as per Hindu Succession Act, 1976, petitioners as well as the respondent are class-1 heirs of deceased Satyaranjan Patra. 9. As per Rule 45 of MP/CG Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976, the gratuity payable under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) of rule 44 shall be paid to the person or persons on whom the right to receive the gratuity is conferred by means of a nomination under rule 46 and if there is no such nomination or if the nomination made does not subsist, the gratuity shall be paid to the legal heirs of the government servant. 10. Undisputably, non of the parties are claiming right through nomination. It is well settled law the nominee is entitled to receive the amount. Mere nomination made in favour of a particular person does not have the effect of conferring on the nominee any beneficial interest in property after the death of the person concerned. The nomination indicates the hand which is authorized to receive the amount or manage the property. The property or the amount, as the case may be, can be claimed by the heirs of the deceased, in accordance with the law of succession; governing them. 11. The Supreme Court in case of Shipra Sengupta (Supra) has held in para 5 of its judgment : mother, being class-1 heir under the Schedule of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, is equally entitled to succeed to the property. 12. Moreover, summary proceedings for grant of Succession Certificate are dealt with under Sections 372,373 and 387 and Succession's Act, 1925. The proceedings for grant of Succession /y^ M ^ " ti ^^^h 1 v^.,. Certificate are summary proceedings. In view of Section 387 any decision in such proceeding in respect ofthe rights do not preclude the parties to litigate the same in a regular suit. A decision in a proceeding for grant of Succession Certificate is not conclusive and the same question may be tried in any other suit or proceeding between the same parties. 13. The order impugned, when examined in the light of above broad features of the case, 1 do not find any illegality or infirmity warranting interference ofthis court under its revisional jurisdiction. 14. The Supreme Court in case of The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabadand Another v. Ajit Prasad Tarway, Manager (purchase and Stores) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad , has observed in para 5 of its judgment as under : "5. In our opinion the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the'first appellate court. It is not the conclusion of the High Court that the first appellate court had no jurisdiction to make the order that it made. The order of the first appellate court may be right or wrong; may be in accordance with law; but one thing is clear that it had jurisdiction to make that order. It is not the case that the first appellate court exercised its jurisdiction either illegally or with material irregularity. That being so, the High Court could not have invoked its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code: see the decisions of this Court in Pandurang Dhoni v. Maruti Hari Jadhav (1966) 1 SCR 102=(AIR 1966 SC 153) and D.L.F. Housing & Construction Co. (P)Ltd. New Delhi v. Sarup Singh (1970) 2 SCR 368=(AIR1971 SC 2324)." 2AIR1973SC76 fC-.-^-^, 1 >3 ^ ^r." .// 15. In view of above, since no jurisdictional illeg^Hty^fas been pointed out by the petitioners, in the considered opinion of this court, the revision being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. —_- _ Sahu Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge 1 1