^ct^s H.« aSS THE H.ISH COURT OF eHHATTISG&ttH &T BI.LA.SPUR (C.G.) Civil Revis.i.on No. /2003 PBTITIONEft AEPEIIANT No. 1 jKPPI,a2ANT; RSSPONI»TTS ^^ /•'^.^" ..••' .C?C9-' Smt. Bapakka Manjhi W/e Ghandu, age about 55 years (inotber), Murla.R/o Village yengpalli.Tah. Bbopalpattanam, DAstt.Itentewada (chbattisgarh) VSRSUS 4' ' ,' //^ •^ ,l'l) Smt.SushAl.a Manjhi W/Q Xiate Ganpat Swami Manjhl (Nen-Applleanfe/Respondeiat) ^'. $ (2) Chandu Manjhi S/o Budhu, ag® 6S years ('E'ather) (ApplIeant/Appellant No.2) $ J3) Ku. jayawatl Manjhl B/o ebandu age 20 years,(Slster) (Applleant/Appellant No.3) &13. R/p Yengpalli,Tabsil- Bhopalp»ttanara,Distt.Dantewada (ebhattisgarh). CIVIL RBVISXON USBSR SECTION 384(3) and 388(3) Of INBIftN SUCCESSXONACT.1925 RB&B WITH SECTI0N 11S 0V C.P.C. 8 <LGontd.2. ^ tAUiatA sn^i w K-w> TOI 311^1 •BWT TS^ -iii-itl<?)4, g>A'«tl6, [qdl«y ^_...a.&.......^.j?...;...^'2>-:^^L ••-•^ sn^T'f^^' ('^yi^ff) 3. TOtRR^lftaai'^I ^Bnferih tw<A" t? 1^et ^^5R ^affinsn^? Shri Subhash Yadav, CQuns^i for the applicant. Shri R.N. Jha, counsei for th^ non-appiioanis. Heard. Feeiing aggrieved by the oijder dated 03-04-2003 passed in Misc. Civil Appeai No. 10/2002 t>y pecond Adciitional District Judge, Bastar Jagdaipur, the instant revisi^n has been preferred. Facts briefly stated as underj The applicant and the non-^pplicants have fited applications for grant of succession certificate ii( their favour for the amount iying deposited with the Education Dep^rtment of Chhattisgarh clalming right enfittement over it respectivel^j. The triai Court on appreciatisn evidence !ed, material ptaced oii record and submissions made, recorded a finding that indisputaljiiy, respondent No.1 te wife of deceased Ganpat Swami Manjhjj has a right over the amount deposited wnth the Education Dep^rtment; ttie appiicant along with non-applicants No.2 & 3 faiied to ^rove any custom confrary to it; passed the order in favour non-appifcant No.1. Against that, applicant alon^ with non-applicante No.2 & 3 preferred an appeal. The said af^eal was aiso dismissed by the impugned order hence this revision.j The oniy submission made bv the learned counse! for ie applicant is that the applicant has inffact proved the custom by whteh XI-HE- TST ^1<<1<1^, »tlly'16, (sjdl'M'j,'!. C. ^. ^o- 2-^/. ^ 311^1 •T^q? £T,-q?T^f •RTRi' •"SjT 3nt?I ?)?)NT <>«ti wrafwipi WTCTf •? re'^t •^ ~TTis establisnea tnat me applicanTiy aiso entrtieci to some snare the property along with respondent ought to have been allowed. Per contra, tearned counsel would submit that a bare perusal o avaiiable on record would reveal proved by the appellant and non- jurisdictiona! error has been committ to be dismissed. have heard Searned couns orders impugned and the record of tt Learned Trial Court has rec< .1 being the wife of the decea amount lying deposited with the i appiicant along with non-applicants prove any custom to the contrary ar in favour of non-appiicant No.1 . !n view of the above, since ti out any iltegality or material irregil below, in the considered opinion q devoid of substance is liabie to be dij In the result, the revision applicant is not precluded from in^ over ths amouot in acGordahce with yo.1 and, therefore, the revision ippearing for the non-applicants f the evidence and the material :hat the custom has not been . 2 & 3, and no d thereby the revision deserves sl for the partles, perused the le case. irded a finding that respondent >ed is only entitled to get the Education Deoartment and the No. 2 & 3 are utteriy faiied to d granted succession certlficate ie appilcant has feiled to point iarity committed by the Courts ! this Court, thls revision being >missed. is dismissed. However, the Mtufing a civt suit ciaiming titte aw, if so advised. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge