d': IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 1% CIVIL REVISIQN N0. /2005 APPLICANTS DEFENDANTS /'RESPQNDENTS NON-APPLICANTS PLAINTIFFS 'APPELLANTS /^ i/^7 ^ffy /'^)/ . 7 ^^/ (v))fV ^^ <t' S ^<^ DEFENDANTS ^RESPONDENTS inass 1] Demunarayan S/o late Shivnath, / aged about 29 years, Sukmen D/o late Shivnath, aged about 31 years, Both are R/o vill. Kuruwan, Tah. Surajpur, Distt. Surguja VERSUS 1] Manmet W/o Shivnath [as per copy of impugned order], aged about 43 years, ; >2] Shyam Bihari S/o late Shivnath [as per copy of impugned order], aged about 16 years, [ Minor, presented through his own mother non- applicant No.l] 3] Nootan D/o late Shivnath [as per copy of impugned order], aged about 21 years, All are R/o vill. Kuruwan, Tah. Surajpur, Distt. Surguja 4] Regional Commissioner of Coal Mines, Provident Fund, Shakti Nagar, [M.P.] Gupteshwar, Jabalpur SpGeneral Manager, South Eastern / Coal Fields Limited [S.E.C.L] Jainagar area, Tah. Surajpur, Distt. Surguja [C.G.] -REVISION PETITON U/S 388 F31 OF INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT /€X & ••SiiB--^) J| & HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION N0. 18 oF 2005 Demunarayan & another Vs. Manmet & others PoBt for pronouncement ofjudgment on ^. /03/2011. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION 18 OF 2005 Present : APPLICANTS DEFENDANTS RESPONDENTS NON-APPLICANTS PLAINTIFFS APPELLANTS Demunarayan & another Versus Manmet & others REVISIQN UNDER SECTION 388 (31 OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT (SingleBench^ Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Asarwal, J.) Smt. Meena Shashtri, Advocate for fhe applicants. Shri Ashok Shukla, Advocate for resppndent No. 1 to 3. Shri Vinay Harit, Sr. Advocate with Shri Suryakant Mishra, Advocate for respondent No. 4. Shri Ravi Ranjan Sinha, Advocate for respondent No. 5. JUDGMENT (Passed on ^L /03/2011) The instaat revision filed under Section 388 (3) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the order dated 22.12.2004 passed by the IstAddl. District Judge, Surajpur, Distt. Surguja passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 04/2004 arising from the order dated 29.01.2004 passed by the Civil Judge, Class I, Surajpur, Distt. Surguja, in Succession Case No. 02/01 Brieffacts ofthe case are that : Shivnath died on 15.09.1997. The applicants are his children from Kunti Bai. Non applicant No. 1 to 3 are claiming to be wife and children oflate Shivnath. Non applicant No. 1 to 3 filed an application under Section 372 ofAct for grant of Succession Certificate in their favour to receive retiral dues of late 1"T'"ST! Shivnath lying deposited with respondent No. 4. The claim was resisted by the applicants herein. The trial court rejected the application on the ground : the applicants, bemg nominees, are entitled to receive the above amount. The appeal preferred there-against by the non applicants was allowed vide order impugned granting succession certificate in favour of non applicant No. 1 to 3 for 50 percent of the amount deposited in provident fund account with interest. Hence this revision. Smt. Meena Shashtri, leamed coimsel apptearing for the applicants would submit neither non applicant No. l/IVtamnet is wife nor Shyam Bihari and Nootan/non-applicant No. 2 & 3 respectively are the children of deceased Shivnath. The deceased Shivnath nominated the applicants for receipt of above funds therefore the order impugned is without jurisdiction and the same deserves to be set aside. Shri Vinay Harit, leamed Sr. counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 would submit: under Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme, nominee of the deceased is entitled for amount of retiral dues, illegitimate children are not children within the meaning of para 2(d) of the above scheme. On the other hand, Shri Ashok Shiikla, leamed counsel appearing for the non-applicant No. 1 to 3 would submit: the first appellate court, on proper appreciation of entire evidence led rightly held non applicants being wife and children of late Shivnath, entitled for half share in the amount of provident fund and according to him the amount of gratuity has already been paid to applicant/ Demunarayan. 7. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and pemsed the record ofcourt below. 8. The trial court granted succession certificate in applicants favour holding them as nominee of deceased Shivnath. The first appellate court, on appreciation of entire evidence found respondent No. 1 to 3 being wife and children of deceased Shivnath, also entitled for a share in the amount of provident fund and accordmgly granted succession certificate in their favour to the extent of 50 percent amount ofprovident fund. 9. The above findings are essentially fmding of fact, does not call for interference of this coiirt in exercise of its revisional jiirisdiction unless it is shown that the above fmdings are perverse, illegal or based on no evidence. 10. As per admission of Demunarayan himself non applicant Shyam Bihari and Nootan are his brother and sister; Manmet came to his fafher's house after 4-5 months after death ofthis mother Kunti aad they were living together. .Even as per reply of respondenVSECL, the names of non applicant No. 1 to 3 finds place in the service record of deceased Shivnath as his wife and children. 1 l[l'BfriT771i|!. :'..",^»iaii?£fe?-h^'i^!: 1 " . 11. So far as right ofnominee is concemed, nomination gives rights to collect, but by no stretoh of imagination, makes nominee owner. Further, nomination was for gratuity amount in favour of Demunarayan and the same has already been paid to him. Nomination under Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme is not available on record. In view of above, it cannot be said that the trial court has committed any illegality or material irregularity leading to manifest injustice to the applicants. warranting interference of this court under its revisional jurisdiction. 12. Moreover, summary proceedings for granf of Succession Certificate are dealt with under Sections 372,373 and 387 and Succession's Act, 1925. The proceedings for grant of Succession Certificate are summary proceedings. In view of Section 387 any decision in such proceeding in respect of the rights do not preclude the parties to litigate the same in a regular suit. A decision in a proceeding for grant of Succession Certificate is not conclusive and the same question may be tried in any other suit or proceeding between the same parties. A finding as to relationship in proceedings for the grant of certificate is not a bar to trial of the question between the same parties. 13. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sahu Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge