IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPU CHHATTISGARH CIVIL REVISION N0. al 705 PETITIONER : Smt. Saifun Nisha widow of Abdul (APPLICANT/ • Rahim alias Nanhu Ram , aged 47 APPELLANT1 years , occupation House Wife, R/o Putka Puri, Tehsil 85 District Raigarh (C.G). VERSUS NON-PETITIONERS : ^_1. Seeta Ram Sahis S/o late Nanhu Rara, aged 37 yrs. ^2. Pujyavati' widow of late Saheb Ram Sahis, aged 42yers. -.3. Anita daughter of SahibRam Safais, 4. Kumari Jyoti daughter of Heera Ram Sahis ^^ wy' .4%% °9^ /.y ^ ^' 5. Ashok Kumar son of Sahib Ram Sahis, 6. Vinod Kumar son'of Sahib Ram Sahis All resident of Village-Putka Puri Tehsil 8s District-Raigarh, (C.G.) , 7. Block Education Officer Pussor, Tehsil 8s District-Raigarh, (C.G.) 8. People in General (who so ever is , Concerned). MEMORENDUM OF CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 388(31 OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT 1925. -''•" /" HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT E Civil Revision No. 21 of 2005 Petitioner : Smt. Saifun Nisha (ADDUcant/ADpellantt Non-petitioners Versus Seeta Ram Sahis & Others & Ciyil RevisionNo. 22 of 2005 Petitioner (Obiector/ADpellantt Non-petitioners (No. 1-applicantt Saifun Nisha Versus Seeta Ram & Others CivilRevisionUnderSection115ofCodeofCivilProcedure.19Q8 (SB: Hon'bte Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) Present : Shri KN Nande, Advocate for applteant. Shri GK Beriwal, Advocate for respondent No. 1 to 6. Shri Sameer Behar, Panet Lawyer for State. ORALORDER 1. >- (Passed on 13°' dayofJanuary, 2010) Revision Nos. 21/05 & 22/05 are being disposed of by this common order. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 29.10.2004, passed by the Distrfct Judge, Raigarh, in Misc. Civil Appeal Nos. 09/2003 & 10/2003 (respectively in both the revisions), affirming the order pasSed ^>n 31.01.2003 by the Clvil Judge, Class l in case Nos. 02/99 & 03/99 respectively (in Revision Nos. 21/05 & 22/05), these revision have been preferred by the applicant. The brief facts of the case are that, one Nanhu Ram Sahis was working as a Headmaster in Primary School Putka Puri under the ^ •2) 'T u:; respondent No. 7/Block Education Officer, Pussor, District Raigarh (CG). He died on 15.12.1998. The respondent No. 1 to 6, being legal representatives of deceased Nanhu, filed an application for grant of succession certificate before the Civtl Judge, Class-l, Raigarh with respect to Rs. 2,30,217/- i.e. the amount of retiral dues of deceased. Other appllcation was also filed by the applicant herein for grant of succession certificate with respect to the aforesaid amount, claiming herself to be wife of deceased. Learned Civil Judge, Class-1, Raigarh, allowed the application of respondent No. 1 to 6 and dismissed the application of applicant. There against, two appeals have been preferred by the applicant before the District Judge, Raigarh, and both the appeals have been dismissed. Shri KN Nande, leamed counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the deceased was converted Mohammedan after professing Islam. He married with the present applicant on 19.12.1995; Nikahnama was registered and thereafter he was living with the applicant as her husband, therefore, both the courts below have erred in rejecting th^ application preferred by the appllcant and in allowing the application preferred by the respondent No. 1 to 6. Shri Nande would further submit that material documentary evidence have been ignored by both the courts below and thus, courts below have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally. Per contra, Shri GK Beriwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 to 6 wouldsubmit that the applicant has faited to prove her marriage with the Nanhu Ram Sahis. The trial court, on ,^..<. nn;^ appreciation of evidence, rejected the application preferred by the applicant and allowed the application of respondent No. 1 to 6 by granting them succession certificate, and thus, the applicant failed to point out any jurisdictional error in the order passed by both the courts below, therefore, both the revision deserveto be dismissed. 6. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order impugned. 7. Admittedly, the respondent No. 1to 6 are legal representatives of the deceased; the name of deceased remainedas Nanhu Ram Sahis in the service record tlll his death and also in the death certificate. Thedeceased had never intimated his;ofTice about his professinglslam and getting marriage with the applicant as per Rule 22 (1) of C.G.Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, and further there 1s no evidence available on record with regard to his professing Islam, inasmuch as nothing has been placed on the record in what manner he professed Islam. 8. The enquiry Tor grant of succession certificate under Section 373 of the India Succession Act is an enquiry which is summary in nature. •>. All that it 1s required to do is to hold a summary enquiry into the right to the certificate, with a view, on the one hand, to facilitate the collection of debts to the deceased and prevent their being time- barred, owing (for instance) to dispute between the heirs inter se as to their preferential right of succession, and on the other hand, to afford protection to the debtors by appointing a representative of the deceased and authorizing him to give a valid discharge for the debt. The grant of a certificate to a person does not give him an i'lMi'? absolute right to the debt nor does it bar a regular suit for adjustment ofthe claims ofthe heirmterse. 9. In view of the above, both the courts below, based on appreciation of evidence, by which the applicant's claim has not been found trustworthy, rejected the application of applicant holding that the applicant has failed to prove her marriage wtth the deceased Nanhu, allowed the apptication of respondent No. 1 to 6 by granting them succession certificate. Therefore, in the considered oplnion ofthiscourt, both the courts below have not committed any jurisdictional illegality warranting interference of this court in its revisional jurisdiction. Moreover, the applicant is not remedy tess she can always bring a regular suit to assert her right and claim appropriate relief in accordance with law. 10. In the result, both the revisions, being devoid of substance are liableto be and are herebydismissed. No order asto costs. 11. A copy of this order be placed on record of Cwil Revision No. 22 of N.K. Agrawal Judge Sahu