LAWS(CHH)-2011-1-77

SATYABHAMA @ SOHAGBATI Vs. KAMLADEVI

Decided On January 27, 2011
Satyabhama @ Sohagbati And Others Appellant
V/S
Smt. Kamladevi And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Legality and propriety of the order dated 10-2-2004 passed in Civil Appeal No. 16/2002 by the District Judge, Rajnandgaon dismissing the applicants' appeal and confirming the order passed by the Civil Judge Class I, Rajnandgaon in Succession Case No. 9/98 and 10/98 dated 16-8-2002 is under assail in the instant revision.

(2.) After death of Satyadev Dubey, respondents No. 1 to 3 as well as applicants have preferred applications under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of succession certificate with regard to the amount of D.P.C. Gratuity, Group Insurance, Widow fund, surrendered leave, Departmental Provident Fund and Family Pension amounting to Rs. 2,78,777/- lying deposit with the office of Police Superintendent, Rajnandgaon. Case of the applicants was that after divorce between late Satyadev Dubey and the respondent No. 1, the applicant No. 1 got married with late Satyadev Dubey and started living with him as his wife and applicants No. 2 to 4 are children out of their wedlock. The applicants were nominated by late Satyadev Dubey in pension case and therefore, the applicants are entitled for grant of succession certificate for retrial dues of late Satyadev Dubey. The respondents No. 1 to 3 have also preferred application for grant of succession certificate for the same amount. Both have denied the claims of each other in their reply.

(3.) Learned trial Court on appreciation of the evidence led, submissions made and material placed on record, dismissed the applicants' application and allowed the application of respondents No. 1 to 3. The appellate court after re-appreciating the entire evidence and documents placed held, the applicants failed to prove that the applicants No. 2 to 4 and respondent no. 4 are children legitimate or illegitimate born out of relationship of applicant and late Satyadev Dubey; the nomination form is doubtful and dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision.