IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision No ^ /2008 REVISIONER APPLICANT l^ ^•y- ?rt gs .-^'z^^ ""L'^ ••0;"1-,....- -•• ,d w s":' » l .»'->•" i^ Padrna Bai, W/o. Shankar, Caste-Raut, Aged about 37 years, R/o. Bodhghat, Dokrighatpara, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G) •KSSV t *s&\' r^e^ ^v .^--; i^-s" VERSUS RESPONDENT NON-APPLICANT Dashrafh Singh Kashyap, S/o. Late Bhadaru Rara Kashyap, Caste-Bhatara, Aged about 46 years, R/o.Hikmipara, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) & CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 88(3) OF INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT READWITH SECTION 115 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE ^' Q HJGHCOURT^OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice^rasJiajitKumarJWishra Civil Revision No.127 of 2008 Padma Bai versus Dashrath Singh Kashyap Civil Revision No.132 of 2008 Padma Bai versus Dashrath Singh Kashyap ORDER Postfor 14-7-2010 Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice PrashanfKumar Mishra Applicant Non-Applicant Civil Revision No.127 of 2008 Padma Bai versus Dashrath Singh Kashyap Present: Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, counsel for the applicant. Shri Subhash Yadav,counsel for the non-applicant. Civil RevLsion under Section 388^3) ofthe Indian Succession Act. 1925 r/w Sectignl 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Applicant Non-ADDlicant Civil Revision No.132 of 2008 Padma Bai versus Dashrath Singh Kashyap Present: Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, counsel for the applicant. Shri Subhash Yadav, counsel for the non-applicant. Civil Revision underSection 388^3)ofthe Indian Succession Act. 1925 r/w Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ORDER fPassedon14--lt-july,2010) By this common order, Civil Revisions No. 127/2008 and 132/2008, under Section 388(3) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (henceforth 'the Act'), are disposed of. Civil RevisionNo. 127/2008 arisesout of the order dated 25-6-2008 passed by the first appellate ^Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No.4/2007, whereas Civil Revision /7 ^ No. 132/2008 arises out pf the order dated 25-6-2008 passed by the first appellate Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No.3/2007. 2. Before the trial Court, Succession Case No.11/2005 was instituted by the applicant Padma Bai, whereas Succession Case No. 12/2005 was instituted by the non-applicant Dashrath Singh Kashyap. Both the applications were preferred by their respective applicants for grant of succession certificate with respect to the Government dues of deceased Jankibai lying in her service account amounting to Rs.3,41,304/-. The trial Court, by two separate orders passed on 30-10-20Q7, allowed Case No.11/2005 in favour of the applicant PadmaBai and dismissed Case No. 12/2005 preferred by the non-applicant Dashrath Singh Kashyap. The first appellate Court allowed the appeals No.3/2007 and 4/2007 preferred by Dashrath Singh Kashyap and set aside the orders passed by the trial Court on 30-10-2007 in both theclaim cases. 3. Deceased Jankibai was a Cook in the Boys Hostel, Dharampura, Jagdalpur in the Department of Tribal Welfare, Government of Chhattisgarh. She diedon 29-7-2004. Asum of Rs.3,41,304/- was lying in her account towards G.P.F., Gratuity etc. She was issueless. 4. According to the rion-applieant Dashrath Singh Kashyap, Jankibai was his auot (Chachi) and is the nearest relative and as such he is entitled to the grant of succession certificate. The case of the applicant Padma Bai was that she is the sister of Jankibai, who was 'residing with her at the time of death. She has also received the 3 ex-gratia amount of Rs. 18,4807- from the concerned department wherein the deceased was working. 5. While resisting the claim of Padma Bai, Dashrath Singh Kashyap stated that the applicant Padma Bai belongs to Rout Caste, whereas Jankibai belonged to Bhatra Caste and as such Padma Bai, having no family relation, cannot be the sister of the deceased. According to him, even if there is a nomination in favour of Padma Bai, she is not entitled to receive the amount. 6. The trial Court proceeded to issue succession certificate in favour of Padma Bai on the ground that in the nomination form submitted by Jankibai before the Assistant Project Administrator, Jagdalpur on 16-4-2002 (Ex. P-1 in Miscellaneous Appeal No.3/2007), she has nominated Padma Bai as the person entitled to receive family pension. 7. The appellate Court, after appreciation of evidence, has allowed the appeals preferred by Dashrath Singh Kashyap after holding that Padma Bai was not the sister of Jankibai as both of them belong to different castes. The appellate Court has also held that since the nominee is not a member of the family, she is not entitled to obtain succession certificate. At the same time, while deckling the appeal arising out ofthe claim case preferred by Dashrath Singh Kashyap, the appellate .Court has found that on the basis of document Ex.P-5 (in Miscellaneous Appeal No.4/2007) relating to the treatment of the deceased and other oral evidence, it is proved that at the time of her L/ ^ , death and immediately preceding her death, she was residing with ^ ^ ^. ^ ^ Dashrath Singh Kashyap and also that Dashrath Singh Kashyap is the nearest relative of Jankibai. The appellate Court observed that in Narayan vs. State ofM.P., 2001 (2) MPWN Note 140, it has been held by the Madhya Pradesh High Court that if nominee is' not a member of the family, the nomination becomes invalid in view of Section 5 of the Provident Fund Act and Rule 8 of the Madhya Pradesh General Provident Fund Rules and that such a nominee is not entitled to grant of succession certificate. In the present case, the applicant Padma Bai is not a relative of the deceased much-less a family member because the applicant Padma Bai and the deceased Jankibai belong to different castes. 8. 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 fitness in other respectsof the applicants. From the evidence on record, it would appear that Jankibai was under treatment before her death. Ex.P-5 (in Miscellaneous Appeal No.4/2007) is the prescription slip and pathological examination of the deceased in the months of April and May, 2004, which is 2-3 months prior to her death on 29-7-2004. Further, from the evjdence of Padma Bai, it would be seen that she betongs to Yadav Caste. She also admits that she is not aware of the names of the parents of the deceased Jankibai. She claims to be her ^successor because, according to her, she was living with Jankibai from 1< childhood. Thus, the finding that she is not a relative of Jankibai does not appear to be perverse. 9. The witnesses, on the other hand, examined by the non- applicant Dashrath Singh Kashyap have stated that Jankibai was married to Punauram. According to witness Asha Baghel, Jankibai was her aunt as she was married to her uncle Punauram. She also says that Dashrath Singh Kashyap had performed the death ceremony and other rites after the death of Jankibai. Dashrath Singh Kashyap has also produced the identity card issued by the District Employment Office, Jagdalpur in the name of Punauram as Ex.P-1 (Miscellaneous Appeal No.4/2007) and he has driving licence as Ex.P-2 (Miscellaneous Appeal No.4/2007). The caste certificate issued in the name of Punauram (Scheduled Tribe) has been filed as Ex.P-3 (Miscellaneous Appeal No.4/2007) and the income certificate issued in the name of Punauram has been submitted as Ex.P-4 (Miscellaneous Appeal No.4/2007). From these evidence, itappears that the assertion of the non-applicant Dashrath Singh Kashyap that Punauram was his uncle and Jankibai, widow of Punauram, was his aunt (Chachi) appears to be probable and established. Thus, Dashrath Singh Kashyap appears to have prima facie the best title for grant of a certificate. In Krishna Pyari Bai Dixlt (Smt) vs. Gobind Mishra, 1992 JLJ 624, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that even if the Judge finds it difficult to determine any question of law or fact finding thesame too intricate and difficult for determination, he is still required to granta certificate to the applicant, if the applicant appears to be a personhaving prima facie the best title thereto. ^ ^ o? 10. In view of the above, this Court finds that the learned first appellate Court has not committed any illegality by allowing both the appealspreferred by Dashrath Singh Kashyap and directing issuance of certificate in his favour. The order passed by the first appellate Court does not suffer from any illegality and the order has not been passed with material irregularity. There is no substance in both the civilrevisions, which fail and are hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. A copy of this order be placed on the record of the connected revision. Gopal Sd/- PrashantKumarMishra Judge