§§ § g% §g v ‘v 1 HATTISGARH BILASPUR ' INGLE BENc an, r ra G Appellant R/o Shivnagg, Handipa, Raipur (C). VERSUS Yr . Yr bout 2 1 to 3 dr S/o & 4 ls D/o l e Nandla and1para Shkhar e a mg CG) ollector Rarpur 9 , 5 lm mmon Czml ases t l ! I 1 Repondent s Order Dated 20 09/02 Of The Court Of Judge, Class—I, £atpur Passed In Successton C Nos. 12 02 & Y’Z/02. Application For Revision UZS. 388 (3) Of Indian Succession “y\vwaw vwxvx \/ w«» C1;v11 Revision No. gL [2.005 S H $ /Revisionist/ (Smt. Shanti Ba]; Wd./o Nandlal Chauh /Non-Applicants / / (x1. Santosh Chauhan, Aged About 30 s., K x2 Laxman Chauhan, Aged About 28 s. . Govind @ Golu Chauhan, Aged A 4 Yrsi . Ku Rekha Chauhan Aged About 19 Yrs Chauhan and . 1 to 4 are R/o Shxvnagar H Ra1pur (CG) ‘ 5' ‘Q: K 5 smt Asha Chauhan, .‘§ : / Chauhan ft & § Smt [axm1 Chuhan W/o Jugnu Sh g i Mm R/o Handlpara Ralpur ( Q g ‘ f 7 State of Chhatt1sgaxh Through C W/o x 1 i E E i 3 l : t t 1 t t I : Seeking Revision of the Order’Dated 5/ [02g 05 of the ' Court Of II dd Distt Judqet Ralpur In Misc Cl { Appeal No 25/20;)£yhich Conf‘rmed The Co i / Act, 1925 riw Sec. 115 of CPC, 1908. qg m Q Sinqle Bench: URT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR l , on’ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mis Civil Revision No.67 of 2005 Smt. Shanti Bai /, Santosi] Chauan and others ORDER Post for 14-7-201 0 i \i\ Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge O H H p/ . ‘ _ ' ———‘-——"———‘-——‘-—_—‘-———-— HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra - Civil Revision No.67 of 2005 AQQlieant Smt. Shanti Bai verSUS Non-Agplicants’ Santosh Chauhan and others Present: , Shri Raja Sharma, counsel for the applicant. Shri Y.C.Sharma, counsel for non-applicants No.1 to 6. Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State/non-applicant No.7. Revision under Section 388(3) of the lndian Succession Act, 1925 r/w a Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 ORDER (Passed on l‘w‘July, 2010) The present revision petition under Section 388(3) of the lndian SucceSsion Act, 1925 (henceforth ‘the Act’) is directed against the impugned order dated 2—2—2005 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Raipur dismissing the applicant’s appeal under Section 388(2) of the Act. wv / l 2. Before the trial Court Case No.12/2002 was presented by non- appiicants No.1 to ’4, who are the sons and daughter of deceased ’Nandlai Chauhan, who was working as Chief Mason ink the Municipal Corporation, Raipur. The applicant Smt. Shanti Bai preferred Case No.14/2002. In both the applications, the respective applicants prayed for issuance of succession certificate in their favour with respect to the, a Kmount of gratuity and provident fund in the account of the deceased l g/ \b lying in the office of Municipal Corporation, Raipur. The trial Court dismissed Case No.14/2002 preferred by the appiicant and allowed Case No.12/2002 preferred by non-appiicants No.1 to 4, directing issuance of a succession certificate in their favour. As both the cases were decided by a common order, one appeal was preferred by the appiicant before the Additional District Judge. The Additional District Judge has amrmed the order passed by the trial Court and has dismissed the appeal by the impugned'order. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Courts below have not properly evaluated the evidence on record and have wrongly denied share to the applicant while issuing the succession certificate inasmuch as she was the legally married wife of the deceased having married him after the death of his first wife. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for non-applicants No.1 to 6 has urged that the orders passed by the Courts below do not call for any interference. 5. i have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record. The trial Court, in its final order dated 20-9-2002 has discussed the evidence in paragraphs 1O to 15 and has recorded a finding that in the absence of any documentary proof regarding Shantibai’s marriage with the deceased, it is difficult to believe her case only on the basis of oral evidence. It has been pointed out by the trial Court that the evidence of the applicant and her witnesses are full of serious contradictions and the witnesses do not affirm or approve each other’s statements. The trial Court has observed that Shantibai W / claims that the marriage had taken place about 20*years back, whereas her father says that the marriage was'performed about 13-14 years back and her another witnessChovaram has stated that the marriage had taken piace 5—6 years back. Even the place of marriage is different in rall the statements. The Iast rites and rituals of the deceased were performed by non-applicants No.1 to 4 and this fact has been admitted by the applicant in paragraph 4 of her statement in the Court. 6. The appellate Court has again discussed the evidence and white afhrming the findings recorded by the trial Court, has held that when there are conflicting claims in relation to obtainment of succession certificate, the Court is required to determine as to who is actually entitled to receive the certificate. The appellate Court, thus, concluded that non~applicants No.1 to 4, being the sons and daughter of the deceased, appear to be entitled to receive the succession certificate. lt has also been held that mere nomination in favour of the applicant shall not entitle herself to obtain the certificate unless it is found that she is legally entitled to succeed to the property of the deceased to the exclusion of others. 7. Section 373(4) of the Act provides that when there are more applicants than one for a certificate, and it appears to the Judge that more than one of such applicants are interested in the estate of the deceased, the Judge may, in deciding to whom the certificate is to be granted, have regard to the extent of interest and the titness in other respects of the applicants. 4 @ 8. It is settled Iaw that the nominee of a‘subscriber to a provident fund is only a trustee for the amount and has nothing more than a right to receive the amount. It is equaiiy. settled that‘when any Class-i heir applies for succession certificate, they would be prima facie entitled to receive the succession certificate as they have the best title vis—a-vis the deceased. 9. In Krishna Pyari Bai Dixit (Smt.) vs. Gobind Mishra, 1992 JLJ 624, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that succession certificate is required to be issued to a person having prima facie the best title thereto. 10. ln the present case, non-applicants No.1 to 4 are the sons and daughter of the deceased. They have performed the last rites and other ceremonies after the death of the deceased. Both the Courts below have found that the marriage between the applicant and the deceased is not proved. Thus, the finding that non-applicants No.1 to 4 have prima facie the best title with respect to the estate of the deceased and also having regard to the extent of interest and the fitness in other respects, they appear to be entitled to the certificate. 11. The Courts below have not committed any illegality nor have acted with material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction so as to warrant interference with the order granting succession certificate to non-applicants No.1 to 4. i 12. There being no substance in the civil revision, it fails and is hereby dismissed‘. There shall be no order as to costs. Sdl- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ‘ Gopal /