Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 602 (CHH)

MANJULATA v. PEELA BAI

2006-12-19

D.R.DESHMUKH

body2006
ORDER 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 22-09-1998 passed in Succession Case No.40/1992 by the IInd Civil Judge Class-I Bilaspur in Succession Case No. 51/1991, the petitioner claiming to be the daughter of deceased Kisha lal, has preferred this Civil Revision. 2. Brief facts are that the non-applicant Nos.1 to 6 herein filed an application under Section-372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act). for issuance of succession certificate relating to moneys belonging to deceased Kishan lal in the Railway Department before the IInd Civil Judge Class-I, Bilaspur in Succession Case No.51/1991. Ramrati Bai, mother of the herein contested the application on the ground that she was the legally married wife of Kishan lal and also had a daughter namely Manjulata, aged 24 years out of their wedlock. It was also claimed that Kishan lal had made nominations in her favour pursuant to which she received the amount of General Procident Fund, Insurance and Leave Salary from the Department. The IInd Civil Judge Class-I, Bilaspur after considering the evidence, oral as well as documentary evience by the parties recorded a finding that Ramrati Bai was not the legally married wife of Kisha lal and ordered issuance of succession certificate in favour of non-applicant No.1 to 6 herein. Evidence adduced by Ramrati Bai was to the effect that she also had a daughter named Manjulata, the peritioner herein from Kishan lal which was also considered by the learned IInd Civil Judge Class-I, Bilaspur. 3. The petitioner filed an application under Section-383 o f the Act for revocation of the succession certificate on the ground that she is the daughter of Kishan lal and Ramrati Bai and was made a poarty in the prceedings under Section-372 of the Act and the respondent Nos. 1to 6 herein had by suppression of material facts obtained the succession certificate in their favour. 4. The learned IInd Civil Judge Class-I, Bilaspur in Succession Case No:40/1992 considered the objections raised by the petitioner- herein and also the evidence, oral as well as documentary by the parties and dismissed the application on the ground that none of the conditions enumerated under Section-383 of the Act for revocation of succession certificate existed in favour of the applicant/petitioner herein. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present revision. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present revision. 5. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner place~ reliance on Jinia Keotin and Others Vs. Kumar Sitaram Manjhi and Others while contending that even a child borne out of a void or voidable marriage was entitled to claim inheritance in property of parents. 6. On the other hand, Shri Ram Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents contended that since none of the conditions which were since qua non for filing of an application under Section-383 of the Act existed, the impugned order ought not to be interfered with. 7. Having heard rival contentions, I have perused the record of Succession Case No.40/l991. 8. Section-383 of the Act is reads as under : Revocation of certificate - A certificate granted under this Part may be revoked for any of the following causes, namely : (a) that the proceedings to obtain the certificate were defective in substance; (b) that the certificate was obtained fraudulently by the making of a false suggestion, or by the concealment from the Court of something material to the case; (c) that the certificate was obtained by means of an untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant thereof, though such allegation was made in ignorance or inadvertently; (d) that the certificate has become useless and inoperative through, circumstances; (e) that a decree or order made by a competent Court in a suit or other proceeding with respect to effects comprising debts or securities specified in the certificate renders it proper that the certificate should be revoked. 9. It is thus clear that existence of any of the conditions mentioned in Sub Clause (a) to Sub Clause (b) of Section-384 of the Act were sine qua non for revocation of succession certificate issued under Section-372 of the Act. The application of the petitioner falls under clause (a) and clause (b) of Section-384 of the Act. 9. It is thus clear that existence of any of the conditions mentioned in Sub Clause (a) to Sub Clause (b) of Section-384 of the Act were sine qua non for revocation of succession certificate issued under Section-372 of the Act. The application of the petitioner falls under clause (a) and clause (b) of Section-384 of the Act. Under sub-clause (a) because that the petitioner contended that she was not made a party in the Succession Case No.51/1991 meaning thereby that the proceedings to obtain certificate were defective in substance and under sub clause (b) because that the petitioner contended that the non-applicant No.1 to 6 had concealed the material fact before the Court in proceedings under Section-372 of the Act that she was the daughter of the deceased Kishan lal. 10. So far as the ground under Sub Clause (a) is concerned, suffice it to say that Ramrati Bai, mother of the petitioner was a party in the Succession Case No.51/1991 and contested the succession case on the ground that she was the widow of Kishan lal and Ku. Manjulata was her daughter. It has been the case of non-applicant Nos. 1 to 6 herein throughout that Manjulata is not the daughter of Kishan lal and that Ramrati Bai was not the legally married wife of Kishan lal. Evidence, oral as well as documentary was led on the above issues before the Court which considered and negatived it. It also appears that a proclamation was issued by the Court before, issuance of the succession certificate. The petitioner, therefore, ought to have raised the objection in Succession Case No.51/1991 before the IInd Civil Judge Class-I, Bilaspur for being made a party. It is beyond contemplation that the petitioner had no knowledge of the proceedings since Ramrati Bai was a contesting non-applicant and resisted the claim on the ground that she was the widow of the deceased Kishan lal and Ku. Manjulata was her daughter. It also appears from the testimony of Manjulata recorded on 30-03-98 that she had already been married to one Shyam lal which fact has very cleverly been concealed by her while making the application for revocation of the succession certificate under Section-383 of the Act. This fact has emerged for the first time in her cross-examination para-4 that she was married sometimes in the year-1991. This fact has emerged for the first time in her cross-examination para-4 that she was married sometimes in the year-1991. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the proceedings under Section372 of the Act were defective in substance. The ground under Sub clause-(b) of the Section-383 of the Act is also not made out. Ramrati Bai being a party in the Succession Case No.5111991 and the question that she was the legally married wife of Kishan lal and had a daughter named Manjulata having been agitated by Ramrati Bai and considered and negatived by the Court before issuing the succession certificate, it cannot be contemplated that the succession certificate was obtained fraudulently by making a false suggestion or by concealing something from the Court which was material to the case. 11. It thus clear that the order dated 22-09-1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge Class-I, Bilaspur in Succession Case NoA0l1992 is well merited and cannot be faulted with. It was open to Ramrati Bai to prefer an appeal under Section-384 of the Act against the order dated 29-06-1992 passed in Succession Case No.51/1991 and to agitate the aforesaid issues therein. The question whether Ramrati Bai was the legally married wife of Kishan lal and whether she or Manjulata was entitled for issuance of a succession certificate in their favour ought to have been agitated in the appeal under Section-384 of the Act. Similarly, the question whether the Court issuing the Manjulata was entitled to a succession certificate even though she was the daughter o Kishan lal borne out of a void marriage with Ramtati bai ought to have been agitated by Ramrati Bai in appeal under Section-384 of the Act. 12. in view of the above discussion, this Civil Revision is devoid of merit and is dismissed at the stage of admission. Revision Rejected.