^ ^ tl gft IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.R. No. 7^ /2006 APPLICANTS: 1. Chhotu Dewangan, S/o Khorbahra Dewangan,aged about 16 years, Through- Natural Guardian & Father Khorbahra, S/o Mangtu Dewangan. 2. Khorbahra, S/o Mangtu Dewangan, aged about 52 years, Both resident Qf Village- Kharora, Thana Kharora, District- Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS NON -APPLICANTS: (^ 1. Smt Urmilabai, Wd/o Jagat Ram Dewangan (Koshta) Aged about 30 years 5 2. Pawan Kumar, S/o Jagat Ram Dewangan (Koshta), aged about 2 years, MinorThrough- 3. Natural Guardian & Mother Smt. Urmilabai Wd/o Jagat Ram Dewangan, Occupation- Housewife R/o Sirri, Post- Kanki/ Thana Kharora, Tahsil- Tilda, District- Raipur (C.G.) General Public ^ 4. Branch Manager, Dena Bank, Branch- Khrora, District-Raipur (C.G.) CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 384 f3) OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT. 1925. 1\ l-"^, \" \ HI6H €OURTOF CMMATnSfiARW AT BXLASPUR C.R.No. 98 ®f200€ Chhotu Dewangan & another Vs. Smt. Urmitabai and Ihree othew. Post for Orderi \~J .tt20©6 Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge 9.u.zoo<& i»— NIfiH €0URTOP CHHATT?^6ARH AT BIUtSPUR B«fonisHonl^ Shrt 3u««€» &iUp Raowlwb^NrtNiivktr Civtt Rwirion NB<S8/2006 ChhQ'ht&cMBEttigandflB'io'th®' Vs. Smt. Urmilabai ond thnse others. Shri J.K. 6upta, Counsel for theappttcaiits. Shri M.K.Bhadupi, CetmsetfopreaporwtavtaNa.l ^IL ORD6R (Delhwred on thte (7ft^eyefN^w»to»v^Q©6) 'Tliis Civtl Revision Ss dKrected OBgoiR^ an orrdet* dh'tasd 19^ Jun& 2006 passed by ltth A<lditionat District Judge ^.T.C.), Raipur, C*@, to Misc. Civil Appcal No. OS of 2006 whensby -the Order |fls«d m Succession Case NQ.36/2Q03 by 6th Ciyii Judge, Chss4. Rai|Mir dip^;ting issyance of SuccesskMn Cerfrificate in favoup of nen- applioants,was affimied. 2. Admittedly, non^s^li€flavtKNe.l-^»iit.UpgrttedboEi ^ttwwNwif airf Pawm Kunwir, norMipptfcant M©.2 teth®s<m <^ (ate »yfigat Rew &ewt»nganwho hod t»N®d^iesi'ts of th®niatupily voh»^fi^KiS^II^- <xnd ^&/-14^02/- IR Bnmch Officet)enfliBanl<yKhap®raonN<dccth on 11.04.2003. JogflEt1 Raift ^wKmyro Wt»4flwwoffried^^1^^ making the 4q?osit and had nomwwhfcGli hla petWOTl's PwdwiiwwK^tauA Mangtu Dewangan ond n^»hew minor Chhoto bewangeBi tl'iroy^'i guardteui Ranneshwar, son of |Shdrt4»ahm^-rtie applicant hte.l. 3. Non-oypiicant Urmita Bai and her mhlior son Pawan fited flm application under Section 372 of Sidjan $ucG@<sion Act for obtcijnin9 SucGession Gertificate for -rtie afonBaxid amount. Nottoe was isajed by publication in th®local mswspssper. The flpplieeB'its/revisioners dtd not raise any objection before the Court. The frandi McBaBgw. t^rna Bank. tQiarora, however, raised an objectton befor®the Covrtthat th® deceased had in one deposit nominated Chhoty through 9fctordtan Rdnieshwar and Barotnjn bewangon and Man9turam Oewanym in -the olher. who were entitled to receive the amounts cteposrted by Jayit Ram- Baratnin Dewongan Js dead. 4. The non-applicflnt Urmila Bai adduccd her evideariese dnd examined witnesses Bhukhanlal A.W.2 dincl Mansha faim A.W.3 to prov® Itiat she was 1+te widow and PGMMOT Kumar was the aan of Jcgat Ram. The 6th Civil Judge Class-t, Raipur vide ordcr d<rt«d 28.08.2004 rejected the contentlon of the Brcnich MarKiger^ beiw Bflwk, 1<^ Ihat the amount was ywyabte to thc nominees <md IssiNtd; ^iccs«»i®n Certificate in equal shar®in favour of 11»<ron-<!pplicant& 5. Aggrteyad by the sdd order, th®opplicorrta heiww prefemsd Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2006 before *be tt1(r A<feliti«mat DistrJct- Judlge, Raipur, whidi was di®iris«dvid® order dated 19.06.2006. It wos heldlhat the oppeal was barred by lEgtitatiQnand Urmila Bai and Panwon Kumar bein9 the legal heirs of Jogat Rani NNer® entitted to receiye the amount (teposited by tate Joujat ftflwGwmsaijpn in Dena Bank, lOiiaropa Branch. 6. The only point urged by SiN J.(t@up'to, fecapnedl counsel for the opplicants in this CivM Revision, ts 'ttiat the nominees were entitted to ^ ,-'' ^. •Ihe issuance of Succession Certiftce^B to thc ^sekiaon ef •riw actuat heirs men't'loned in Schedute 1 of SectlenS of Mtodv Succession Aet. 0!n 1h& o-riier hand, Shri Matoy l&imar Bhaduri, teapned ceyraset fwriw non-applteants No.l & 2 phcad retiance on ft.S.ChaNrwdt A Othws v. Snehtata Ctiaturvtd^. S»n*. Safbfflti t)avl and C»W?N|BP v. St»t. Usha Dw<2 and Puron Pposad Shania v. Rfl^wh s/o Rodh^^am and attwmi3 white a»ntendjNgItiot in aummary proceedhgs fw grant of Succession Certifica-te under 5ection 372 ef Indkm .Succession Act, the nwsr®fdffit of nomination madte faiy krtc Jffliyatfeaw 6®w«OTgc^ the time of maklng the deposit, dees not take awoy •riw r^ht of the te^l hei>sto obtainaSuccession<^rtlfloa*eOTlfceirfai^^ 7 Hwing heard rival subntissions, I ffeid ne tacrit tn •tNis Civil Revision. ffrocecding under Section 372 of th®Indiaii Sycce^ien Act Is of suniinar/ natur®. T^he applioEmts hepein dN R®tparN^a-te te the summary ppOjCCTsdings de^lte issyeutce of a pvblicati<m A tocal riewspapep t>y Ihe Court. The ev*den©^J»db^^tw n®n-<flpptteant8 herein before Ihe kniier Court ctearly prowd that •t^eywer®•tfeft^Bl Iwii^ of jfogat jiiam, d®n^ntton^ fft Schedute 1; •te.^c't'ton 8 of th® Hi'ndu Succession Act ar»d •Hwt noiBh'iQtion m fawour* ®fth» non- a^licflntSNiasjnade by 3'a9at (itani &®waN^onprior ts hls fnornioiiB to Urmila Bai. In R.S.Chaturwdl (supra 1), i* wos hetd -riiat a nomination wi-thout conferring ony legal rlght to inherit the propertyby succession only permits the persen WKwl^se fayour noinination has been ma<fe to receiv® th® amouiit. Jfo Sirbefl Devl dwid wxrtlwr (supra2),it was held by Itr .Supreme Court that a merenomJnation niade UBrier Sectton 39 of inairsanee Act does not cxclude the legal heir^s from clalming It'ie WWMWII A'I 1. 20<®(2)C.GAJ. 2.AIR1984SC346 3.l9»7(2)M^A.3.4» r accordance with kw of suTOe^iion 9ovemin9 Aeni. In Purm PrwKld Shwma (supra 3),tt was held that procecdmgs uadtep ^ecstton 872 of Indian Successiori Act are summary proceedings tmdupan isBuaneeof Suc<^ssion CertificatB in fwour of tegal h^int Ahc rewedy of ftlinga separate Civii Suit for deckunation of their ri9ht was dwailable t& the mominees. The wicttrtw and son ore 1+»e legal heirs of liie deaKtfed h'l accordance with Schedule 1, of Section 8 of the Mmdki Si^oMMrim Act 1956. On 1+ie basis of the evidea'iGC oxStdtWcd befer®1te»,l«irned^hfil Judge Class-t, Raipur, in Suceesston Case hk».36 of 2003, tke.tedffncd CiviT Judge nejhs^y dirocted th®isauanceof a SucGcsshm ©eptiftoflftes in favour of the widow ond the son of the Asewtsed wlw wwre the lc^al heirs. os mentioned Jun Schedvte 1 of Sedion 8 of th®Hindu Succession Act. The mer®fact of fioiwiation madc by tlsgert' ftam Dewangan did not create o»iyright to obtawi Succession Gertificate tn favour of the nominees to the exclusiort of the aetyal l^il hetrs, as mentioned in Schedule 1 to Section 8 of Hfridu Succession Act. In this view of the matfrer, the impugned order te well merited cnd ctoes not call for any interference. ^^ ^ 8. The Civil RevJSKm is accordin<}ly di«iiifa»clas devoid^f wer>}t» Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge