^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) €^. C.R.NO.!3S/07 ^ ^$fi.-,.,. '^ ^s^:^^. ^^^'^'l' ft^ PETITIONER Snehlata Chaturvedi W/o late Shri Anil Chaturvedi Aged about 45 years occupation O^^— Excise Constable in the excise department ,1 Wo..---^"r^^.^.'^ln''' " Bilaspur R/o Main Road Dayalband B'WO:7^'^M/-^ ("esa:A8d lsvJa-HB" (Sat86---"V:" Bilaspur Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENT Smt. Kamala Chatiirvedi W/o R.S. Chaturvedi R/o FI 2/3 Vikas Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) Civil Revision under section 115 ofthe Code ofCivil Procedure. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision No. 138 of 2007 PETITIONER RESPONDENT Snehlata Chaturvedi. Versus Smt. Kamala Chaturvredi CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE S.B. : HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J PRESENT:- Shri Rajeev Bharat, counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.D. Singh and Shri Vineet Kumar Pandey, counsel for the respondent. ORAL ORDER (03-11-2011) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 24.08.2007 passed by the Civil Judge Class-I (C.J.M.) in succession case No. 8/2005 whereby the petitioner's application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the C.P.C/) has been dismissed, the instant revision has been preferred. 2. Facts in brief are as under: (i) Petitioner is the wife of late Anil Chaturvredi and respondent is his mother. The petitioner preferred an application for grant of succession certificate in her favour to get retiral dues of-her husband, lying deposited with the Excise Department, Government of Chhattisgarh. An objection was preferred by the respondent. '%... (ii) The trial Court decided the matter in favour of the petitioner. The objector as well as father of deceased went in appeal. The appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent preferred revision before this Court. This Court, in Civil Revision No. 140/2004 vide order dated 21.06.2005, held as under: "9) A nomination without conferring any legal right to inherit the property by succession only permits the person in whose favour nomination has been made to receive the amount. Wife is also legal heir of the deceased in accordance with Section 8 of Schedule 1 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Section 373 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, empowers the Court to determine the dispute summarily and grant the certificate to the claimant if it appears to the Court that the claimant having prima facie the best title. Smt. Kamla Chatur^edi - mother of the deceased Anil Chaturvedi, has not filed any application in accordance with Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act to grant the succession certificate whereas respondent, the wife of Anil Chaturvredi, only applied for it, therefore, succession certificated granted in her favour by the Court below does not call for any interference. However, the mother being legal heir has a right to obtain her share over the disputed property in accordance with law.w (iii) After passing of the above order, the respondent herein again preferred an application for grant of succession certificate in her favour. The petitioner by filing application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. sought dismissal of the above application on the ground that succession certificate has already been granted in petitioner's favour and now the applicatiQn preferred by the respondent is not maintainable. (iv) The application was dismissed by the trial Court. Hence, this revision. ^^y^^. i ltss^... 1 ^' v^^^%^^, g % ~:-;-^-^.^,^ k ^ ^.i—y ^""" . .^y ^ggwl^ 3. Shri Rajeev Bharat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit: the succession certificate has already been granted in petitioner's favour; the order of grant of succession certificate passed in petitioner's favour has already been upheld by the High Court; respondent's right, if any, lies in filing civil suit and the Court below has acted without jurisdiction ^in dismissing the petitioner's application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. 4. On the other hand, Shri S.D.Singh and Shri Vineet Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit: the trial Court has rightly dismissed the petitioner's application and revision deser^es to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. 6. Indisputably, the order of grant of succession certificate passed by the trial Court in petitioner's favour has been affirmed by this Court vide order dated 21.06.2005 giving liberty to the respondent i.e. mother of the deceased to obtain her share over the disputed property in accordance with law. It is settled law, succession certificate does not confer any title but only gives right to collect. In the instant case, the order of grant of succession certificate in petitioner's favour had already attained finality, therefore, the application for grant of succession certificate filed by the respondent, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was not maintainable and the trial Court has committed gross ^^ "w;53"":!:!8 1 i'! jurisdictional illegality in dismissing the petitioner's application vide order impugned. Moreover, the respondent is not remediless. The respondent may obtain her share by filing civil suit against the petitioner. 7. In view of above, the civil revision is allowed. The order impugned, being not sustainable, deser^es to be and is hereby set aside. The application preferred by the respondent for grant of succession certificate is dismissed. The respondent is at liberty to file civil suit for getting her share in the disputed property. The respondent is also at liberty to seek exclusion of time under Section 14 ofthe Limitation Act. 8. No order as to costs. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge