k ^ o ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSIGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision. No 'fc / /2006 APPLICANT ^ON-APPLICANTS Mw / ;^^\? J-s^ s°fj ^ ^ ^ "'^ : ^ ->1. 2. Fulmani Khess W/o Late Shri Shripal Singh Thakur, aged about 60 years, Caste Uraon, R/o Civil Lines, Near Municipal High School, Sarangarh, District Raigarh, C.G VERSUS Smt. Suniti Singh, Wd/o. Late Shripal Singh Thakur, aged about 54 years. Smt. Rekha Singh, S/o^-1-ate Shripal SingMhakur, W/o. Shri Vijay Singh Thakur, aged about 26 years Minor Kumari Geetanjali, S/o. Late Shripal Singh Thakur, aged about 7 years, ^4. Minor Brijpal Singh, S/o. Late Shripal Singh Thakur, aged about 6 years, No. 3, 4 minors through natural guardian mother Suniti Singh, All by caste Kshatriya Rajput, and all resident of Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) 5. General Public 3. REVISION UNDER SECTION 384(3) OF THE irsLDIAN SUCCESSION ACT. 1925 R/W.SECTION 115 C.P.C. L.—^..^:..—.— M^ ^^ III li. ;1 ir.tii ??-IH ; Hi<lililiilili ^iiiiiisi^R ^Wiri-iiiUi i •^ ^malilit(enih^!il^ti'llliJSirijiiiti llllai^itliu^ m CivihReYisiiralNol6tGt200t Fulmarii Khes& yersus Srnt.SynJfiSing^aFtclothers ^iiiR^ ^,,-. ^K Postifor 12-8-2Q10 Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge -I- u '-^i ^^'K^. ^ ^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Applicant Non-Applicants Civil Revision No.161 of 2006 Fulmani Khess versus Smt. Suniti Singh and others Present: Shri S.R.Sinha, counsel for the applicant. Shri N.K.Chatterjee, counsel for non-applicants No.1 to 4. Civil Revision underSection 384^3) ofthe Indian Succession Act. 1925 r/w Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ORDER (Passed on _[^k August, 2010) This revision under Section 384(3) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (henceforth 'the Act') has been preferred by the objector challenging grant of succession certificate by the trial Judge by his order dated 18-7-2005, which has been confirmed by the first appellate Court by the impugned order dated 30-6-2006. 2. Non-applicants No.1 to 4 preferred an application under Section 372 of the Act for grant of succession certificate on the pleadings inter alia that late Shripal Singh Thakur, who was a Reader in the Civil Court Jashpurnagar was taken to Ranchi for his treatment where he died on 23-1-2004. Non-applicant No.1 Suniti Singh was married with the deceased in the year 1973. Non-applicants No.2 to 4 are the daughters and son out qfthe wedlock between non-applicant No.1 and 'the deceased. The deceased was residing with the family consisting of .^.^^^ ^":r;^ ^ non-applicants No.1 to 4 and had mentionednon-applicant No.1 as his nominee in the Government records relating to pension and other retiral benefits and that no other person is the heir of the deceased. 3. The applicant Fulmani Khessobjected to the application on the pleadings that she was married with the deceased on 17-5-1974 and a certificate of marriage was issued by the Marriage Officer, Bilaspur. She stated that when the deceased was posted at Raigarh, a complaint was made by her against the deceased that he had performed second marriage on which an enquiry was made, wherein it was found that the deceased had performed second marriage. 4. In course of enquiry, non-applicants No.1 to 4 produced the death certificate Ex.P-1, a notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jashpur against non-applicant No.1 for vacating the Government accommodation. This was submitted to prove that she was residing with the deceased in the Government accommodation at the time of his death. Ex.P-3 is the certificate by the Sarpanch of the concerned Gram Panchayat to the effect that the deceased was married with non- applicant No.1 in 1973. This is also signed by 5 witnesses. Ex.P-4 is an affidavit of the deceased sworn on 9-7-1993 giving right to non- applicant No.1 on his property. Ex.P-5 is the voter-list bearing signature of the deceased. Ex.P-6 is a sale-deed in which objector Fulmani as purchaser has shown herself as Fulmani Xess daughter of Sammun Xess meaning thereby that she has not presented herself as wife of the deceased while purchasing the land on 4-3-1998. 'Documents in relation to Group Insurance Scheme and Provident Fund ^^^^ f-C %?g»»;> V ^-.:.-^' ^ has been submitted to prove that she was the nominee of the deceased. 5. Non-applicant No.1 Suniti Singh examined herself and her witnesses Basant Singh, Lokpal Singh, Sushil Ram and Rooprao Ghatol, whereas the applicant Fulmani Khess examined herself and her witness Jaldhar Singh Yadav. The applicant produced the marriage certificate as Ex. D-1 and the document regarding enquiry mitiated against the deceased on her complaint as Ex.D-2. 6. The trial Court on appreciation of the evidence has found that non-applicants No.1 to 4 are entitled to be granted succession certificate. The said finding has been confirmed by the first appellate Court. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that in view of the marriage certificate Ex.D-1, the Courts belowshould have held that the applicant is entitled to thecertificate and that the claim of the non- applicants are not tenable. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for non-applicants No.1 to 4 has argued that enquiry under Section 372 of the Act is of summary nature and the certificate is to be issued in favour of the person(s) who have the prima facie entitlement to obtain certificate. 9. In the statement of the applicant Fulmani Khess, she has admitted that through out her life she was residing at Sarangarh where she was working as N.M. in Health Department from the year 1968. She has admitted that non-applicants Rekha Singh, Gitanjali and S i 1 :t :i ^ 1 ^. ..^- •w ^^l Brupal Sing^ are daugl^s a^ Suniti Singh. SheaclrHjtsthatshe^^ the time ofhis treatmeniand:ll^tSunit^^ <teceased^ She also admjts^hat she ^ Singh was at^ashpurwith the^eceased^^S not aware if mamage of the^decea^ Singhm1973andalsothatshehasnoiss^^ 10. From the above admission ofthe ajsplicaritihe^ ^ apparent ^haf but ^ IJ:?<:::'11-::':1:;.':..;:::;::/':::':^ Mamage O^cer, Bilaspur, sheappearslo have n /deceased...!.::. :1:1^::'-'';.:'1'}'. •••'•'^ ^l./--^.l.!^--\/.':'':;:.\'..'lf^1^' l.r..;:;;:^;'^^.rl'::'l:':-li- 11. Section 373(4) ofthe^^p^ applicants than onefbr a certificate, and it ap|^a ^the|Jydget^ moi^ tharione ofsuch applicants are jrrterested^^^p deceased,theJudgemay,jnxlecidi^^ granted, haye regardto the ektehtof^^i^ 1, respectsofWeapplicarits^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ j 12. lnKns^naP^fia^Dm(^^^^^^^^^ 624, the Mgdhya Pradesh H ; certificate is requjred to be issued to a person tiaying pnma^^^^^^ besttjtlethereto. 1 13. In the present case, the applK^nt herself admits in her ^ thatnon-applicantNo.lwasresidJhgwiththede^ non-applicantsNo.2to4arethe^cfaughtersandsonofthed ihe aIsoadmitsthatshetiasFesidedatSararigarlTlthroughoy ^^•"•r--^'•^ %. ^13il®^ ^..^ ^..:ys-^.^ ^ whereas the deceased was residing at Raigarh or Jashpur. In view of the fact that the enquiry under Section 372 of the Act is of summary nature and that the findings regarding the entitlement of non-applicants No.1 to 4 for issuance ofsuccession certificate has been arrived at by careful examination of the material on record and the said findings are not perverse, this Court finds that no interference is called for in the orders passed by the Courts below directing issuance of succession certificate in favour of non-applicants No.1 to 4. 14. In the result, the civil revision fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Gopal