^.^,^^^^.^^^ ^ y' } IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA8PUR CIVIL RBVISION N0. IM^ OP 2004 PETITIONER8; /Non-Applicants) .^. •^'w vs RB8PONDENTS (Applicants) ^ /l.Smt. Sukri Bai, widow of Late Shahju Rairi Mahra, aged about 50 years. 21. Ku. Sumni, daughter of Late Shahju Ram Mahra, aged about .M^ /y' y^-' f.x Non-aoolicaat: 20 years. 3. Sainu Rara, son of Late Shahju Rain Mahra, aged about 22 ycars, Ku. Sumni, daughter of not known (as mentioned in the impugned order) Samu Ram, son of not known (as mentioned in the impugned order) All residents of Village Mongrapal, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.5 1. Sukri Bai wife of Late Shahju Ram Mahra, aged about 60 years, resideut ofVillage Deorgaon, Tehsil Jagdalpur District Bastar (C.G,) ^ ^ 2.The Joint Director, Veterinary Health Services Office, Chandni Chowk, Jagdalpur District Bastar (C.G.). CIVIL REVI8ION UNDBR 8BCTION 115 OP THE CODB OF CIVIL PROCEDURE R/W 8ECTION^384(3l OF THB INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT Arising gut of the order dated 1^6.2004 passed by the ^"" - - . - . - -- learned District Judge, Jagdalpur in Miscellaneous Civil s^" Appeal No,2/2003, which in tiirn had arisen out of order dated 2978.2003 passed by the """Civil Judge Class-II, ..^-- Jagdalpur in Succession Case No, 17/01. ^ \\° NIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLA$PUR CSVIL REVISION N0.147 OF1004 APPLiCAJMTS, : Smt. Sukri Bai B others z: Versus RESPONDENTS Sukri Bal & another. ayiL,REVfSlQN_UNDER_S^CTION 11S OF THE COOE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RAAf SECTSON 284(31 OF THE iNDIAN SUCCESSION ACT ^ ISIrEale Bench: Hon'bSe Mr. N.K. Aaarwai. J.i : Shri Prafuil Bharat, counset for the appljcants, counsel for the appiicants. Shri Ratan Pushty, counsel for respondent No.1. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 28th day of January, 2010) Challenge in this revision is to the order of Dlstrict Judge, Jagdalpur In Mlsc. Civil Appeal No. 02/2003 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioners/appiicants has been dismissed confirming the order passed by Civil Judge, Class-t, Jagdatpur dated 28-08-2003 In Succession Case NoE.17/2001 granting succession certjflcate in favour of respondent No.1. 2. The oniy question raised by JVIr. Prafuij Bharat. learned counsel for the applicants js that slnce appllcant No. 2 & 3 are iljegjtimate chiidren of late Sahjuram Mahra, therefore, they are entitied for grant of succession certificate, in the eye of law inasmuch as the ijiegitjmate chlldren are a!so entitled to succeed the property ieft by the deceased. 3. Per contra, Shri Ratan Pushty, iearned counsel for non- appiicant No.1 would submjt that on facts, it is not correct that the appSicants No. 2 & 3 are illegjtjmate chjfdren of deceased tete Sahjuram EVIahra. He further submits that the applicant No.1 in his stateinent para 14 has categorically admitted that the applicant No2 and 3 are not the chiidren of deoeasecS Sahjuram Mlahra but the name of their father is Peeluram i.e. the eariier husband of applicant No.1. 4. Shri Bharat, learned counsel fbr the applicants coutd not controvert this factual aspect of the matter. In view of the aforesaid J^ r—-- admi'ssion of the appiicant No.1 , it cannot be said that applicant No.2 and 3 are iijegitimate children of deceased Sahjuram Mahar and, therefore, the concurrent fsnding recorded by both the Courte betow cannot be fauited with. 5. !n vlew of the above, since the applicants coutd not point out any such illegality or perversity in the concurrent finding arrived at, by both the Courts beiow, in the considered opinjon of this Court, the revision being devoid of msrits is Jiable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Kvr Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge |BW«^ ^•—-—^^^Ky ^.^.^-^^. ^^^^^S'S^^^ss