IK. ^ '4 ;~<-ul~"^- ••.-.•u-V^-ij'< 'v^v-'v•~i-^-lT~^-'\.-'u'<~'>"i-'''^CV.'u'~'y-..;;^.'U^V~v'vs/'^- ru"i/C~^<^r^^i^</y^^w'v>yv'w-^-j-^A^ IN THE mGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CivilRevisionKo.^M3_/2003 APPLICANT : ,1; Ramkumar Sharma S/o Ganga Prasad R/o Dangnia, Tehsil and District- Bilaspur. 2. Mst Chndrakala,aged 55 years, ^ W/ o Ramkuinar She^ma, R/o Dangania, Tehsil and District- Bilaspur. 3. Ku. Seem D/ o Ranikumar Sharmay^^^^d205rear8,R/o Dangania,TehsU and District- Bilasur. ^y -Versus- ^"^. ^'^7 b' RESR3NDENTS : ^JL,. Dinesh Kiunar Pandey S/o ^y Babtdal Pandey, R/ o Banarf, <^ -^ TehsiLJanjgir, bistriotBilaspur 1 ^2. General Public. CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION115 OF THBC.P.C., HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAmi AT BILASPUR ^v^ APPLICAITT R^POHDENTS C.R. No. 243 OF 2003 Ramkumar Sharma and another Versias Dinesh Kumar Pandey and anotfaer "&- ^ ^.- •^ c. SINGLE BENCH;- Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J PRESBNT:- Shri Ajay Mistira, Adv. for fhe applicants. Shri Malay Shdvastava, Adv. for fhe non-applicant No. 1. ORAL ORDER (9-2-2010) 1. Instant revision is directed against the order dated 27-6- 2003 passed by Additional District Judge, Janjgir Distt. Bilaspur m Misc. Civil Appeal No. 17/2002 afimning order' dated 13-11-2002 passed by Civil Judge Class I, Janjgir in Succession Case No. 13/90 whereby and whereunder succession cerdJEicate has been granted in favour of the respondent No. 1 foramountofRs. 74,120/-. 2. It is not in dispute that the applicant No. 1 is father, No. 2 is motter, No. 3 is sister of deceased Smt. Asha Sharma and respondent|No. 1 is her husband; she died on 16-9-1990 issuetess. 3. Marriage between deceased Smt. Asha Sharma ond respondent No. 1 took place on 30-6-89 and she lived in the matrimonial home for 4-5 months after her marriage. 4. Shri Ajay Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant would contend tliat relations between the deceased and the respondent no< 1 were strained; he used to assault her and in fact, fhe respondent No. 1 had murdered her and therefore, ia view ofSection 25 ofthe Hindu Succession Act, he is not entitled to succeed fhe property left by her. 5. Per contra, Shri Malay Shrivastava, leamed coiinsel for the respondent No. 1 would submit that leamed trial Court as well as the appellate Court have considered ever5.r aspect of the matter and dealt with the evidence led m the case and ^ ^' CC1- caine to a conclusion that the applicants lailed to adduce any such evidence leading to suggest that the respondent no. 1 has murdered tfae deceased atid therefore, the concurrent finding offact recorded by both fhe Courts below deserves to be upheld. 6, I have heard leamed counsel for th^ parties and perused the order impugned as also fhe records of fhe case, 7. Leamed trial Court based on fhe evidence led in the case, had come to a conclusion that there is no evidence which could suggest fhe involvement of respondent No. 1 in the aUeged murder, more over admittedly neifher any case was re^stered nor any prosecution was lodged by the applicants nor any complamt case has been filed alleging respondent no. 1 responsible for the death of the deceased in any manner or for abating suicide aiid in this view bfthe mater, it cannot be said fhat fhe concurrent fmding in this regard recorded by both the Courts below is peryerse. 8. It is torite law that while exercising revisional jurisdiction, unless fhe finding is peryerse or fhe order has been passed ignoring the evidence on record or is based on no evidence, this Court should not interfere in the order under Section 115 of C.P.IQ. No such circumstance has been pointed out here. It is also trite law that succession certificate only gives right to collect. It does not debar a person to assert Nslight before fhe civil court,. 9. In view of |above, revision being devoid of substances, deserres to be and is hereby disniissed. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge r"!