IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) CIVIL REVISION N0 . /.6 SS1QJ6 '8©ii1^ OF 2005 APPLLICANT Baccha Kum.ar Samant S/o Late Dukhbandhu Sainant, aged about 60 years, Occupation- Agriculture, R/o Patrapara Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.). VERSUS• NON-APPLICANTS 1^' ! M/ kt^ ;; J? MY ^]<1 1^' ^J ^JI ^' /•" Indira Singh D/o Late Chandrachud Prasad Singh, aged about 45 years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Kothi House Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) Presently Residing at Dhararajaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.). Vijay Singh S/o Late Chandrachud Prasad Singh, aged about 50 years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Palace Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.). Public At Large. CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OFLTHE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 XI-HC-22 sn^rw R-ii+sn^T a>*i ylga SCTW 3^ "iiwicll, arflwis, js|<<)|+|^< W lis<ch W^-.^^.^ ^oo *11*IWI ShH[% R*^ sn^TTOITWHf^tT 28/02ff005 Shri P.P.Sahu, counsel for Shri Manoj Paranjape, cou Heard. <he applicant. (sel for the Caveators/respondents 1 &2. The applicant has preferre(l of the Code of Civil Procedurfe 28/01/2005 passed by First Additi^ Appeal No. 14/2004 by which th|e upholding the order ofthe Civil Ji of First Civfl Judge Class-1,Rai No. 01/98 and Succession Cer decided by a common order and| applicant for Succession Certlfics late Rangnath Kumari has been r{ favour of respondents 1 & 2 has V^ Learned counsel for the order passed by the Appellate C| below had erroneously arrived to| to prove the due execution of the| Witnesses of the said willwere examined for the reason that the Learned counsel fbr the al was validly appointed attorney 4 t>i<(Fti41-f*<it«iTfffei</|<(Si^ii< ^aTf^Tsn^r the instant revision underSection 115 against the impugned order dated |>nal District Judge, Raigarh in Misc. Civil |e appea\ of the applicant was rejected |dge Class I, Dharamjaigarh to the Court barh in the Succession Certificate Case tificate Case No. 04/2001 vrttich were |by the said order, the application of the te on the basis of wlll dated 16/05/77 of sjected and the Succession Certiflcate In eenlssued. applicant has challenged the aforesaid aurt on the ground that both ttie Courts conclusion that the applicant has failed will only on the ground that the attesting iot examined though they could not be ittesting wttnesses were dead. pticant further submits that the applicant the deceased Smt. Rangnath Kumari XI-Hr'-22 3ii^rg;r R-fksn^r SfllW N?H)?tT 3^ •<<I<4IC1<I, ©Tfl+1'16,Rjdltfy 3TT^1 111MI sniiqi ;?Lli»ra> ....<=/.(^.'^-.fe/^- ^>. 200 afi^i^wiwflfer -&.- attorn^y bebrs and registered power of attomey strengtti of this power of estate of the deceased during attomey filed in the case also of the signature of the two committed a material illegality by by comparing the signatures would have established that Rangnath Kumari in the presenc^ was executed in his favour and on the irn^y, the applfcant was looking after the her Ufe time and registered power of the signature of the applicant as also witnesses and the Courts have I not ascertaining the signature in the will avfailable on the power of attomey which same was duly exeeuted by Late ofthe attesUng witnesses. att|esting the On the other hand, leamey that the scope of interference unjler Section 115 of CPC or under Se<ttion is very timW:ed and the facts an|d below that the applicant has fa| attesUng witnesses or in case o1| examining some one who is con\|ersant wtth witnesses or findings of fact anc| reason. However, leamed couns^l even otherwise the applicant ha( are dead and ttiere is no matet death certificate ofthe attesting to be suspicious atso on the jbi separate stamp papers whereajs Btescribed as 15/05/1974 an|; °t)i<<F<-i<l1'<*<itf(iT^"te^|'<Ri^i<. ^Slf^ETSn^T counsel for the non applicants submite the revisional jurisdicUon either under 388 (3) ofthe Indian Succession Act flndings recorded by both the Courts led to prove ttie wiB by examining the the death of the attesUng witnesses, by the signatures of ttie attesting the same cannot be interfered with any •41 for the appticant further submits that not proved that the attesting witnesses ial on record ftat they are dead as no ^ihiesses are flled. The will has been held iround that the will is executed in two in the first stamp paper, the date is in the second sheet it is shown »r f s ! .'<-. XI-HC-22 sn^r^iT f^rwaii^r siiii»tffBfl 3^ ^TPricTO, S^FR, Rtcfltiy 3ll^<<s|th IINMI snilth •-•--••—••••"••••• gy 200 Rl<i«d 3<i^<i e'wraTflfer -la>- as16/05/1974 and this has bee arrh/ing to the condusion that the taken by both the Courts betow for 'lvill is suspicious. noti Learned counsel for the the Full Bench of the Apex Coui^ Paoe 153 Para 10 Pandurana applicarrt relying upon the judgment of reported in AIR Suoreme Court 1988 Oftoncff CAououte & Others Vs. Marutt Hari Jadhav & Others, whereii cireumscribed the limitations un<|er CPC has to be exercised by Ijhe concurrent finding of the.fact canr|ot be This has been subsequentl| Judgments reported in AIR 197\ Housina and Constructlon Co, 2003 AIR SCW Paae 177 Paa Namdeo Kadam ansl 2004 AIR\ Dass Vs. Davlnder. In view of the judgment^ applicant submits that the conc( both the Courts below cannot be| jurisdiction under Section 115 Section 388 (3) ofthe Indian 1 have heardlearned co|u through the impugned order dait^d District Judge, Raigarh confirmlnj ':M<i[ti41-i*<i*fi~iT^fei^f^RZR ^i3tR|lT3n^r it was held that the.Apex Court has which the powers of Section 115 of High Courts and submite that the interfered ih revision. followed and reiterated in various other SC Page 2324 Para 8 Ws. D.L.F. fP) Ltd. Vs. Saruo Sinah & Others, 11 Janlfl Naravan Bholr Vs. Naravan gupfieme Court Paae 2162 Para 6 Ram citedabove, the counsel for the non rrent findings of the facts recorded by questioned by the applicant by invoking )f Code of Civil Procedure read with lAct. Suctession nsel for the partles and 1 have gone 28/01/2005 passed by First AddiUonal the order of the Succession Court and 1 XI-^C-22 sn^rw f^iNisn^r St>li<0 (rf^tT sh*11<tiff 3^''<ii<ii<'i<i,siT(1^'i6, Rictiuy Sii^i^ia'.h ^ ^ Hliwisnilth """""""•••"""^F]'J 200 R'b^"""""""""" 3ll^<16«l]WflfeT -h' pifove accordahce abol/e r^cord am of the opinion that both the that the applicant has failed to by proving thesame in question is suspicious. The based on material available on interference under SecUon 115 Indian Succession Act. Accordingly, the instant and it is dismissed. Consequentty, M.C.P. No. Qourts betow have amved to a conclusion the execution of the impugned order with law and further ttiat the will in finding is the finding of fcct which is and the same doesnot call for any t>f CPC or under SecUon388 (3) of the qil<lfn<fl-1 111(lT^'fetfl'<Rl«l< ^;3i1^ir3n^r r^vision petition deserves to be dismissed 173/2005 stends^isBOsed of. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge a"»Hu