BAHURA Vs. DARASRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 384(3) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter shall be referred to as, 'the Act of 1925'), Bahura and others, who are applicants in both the instant civil revisions, have preferred these civil revisions calling in question the common judgment dtd. 5/4/2018 passed by the District Judge, Janjgir-Champa by which the learned District Judge has allowed the appeal filed by Darasram granting Succession Certificate in his favour and further dismissed the appeal preferred by the applicants herein.

(2.) Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both the civil revisions, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(3.) Two persons namely Narayan and Phool Bai were husband and wife and were issueless. They were murdered and the police had seized total Rs.7,20,102.00 as well as some silver & gold ornaments amounting to Rs.2,00,000.00 approximately from their house. In the murder case of Narayan and Phool Bai, one Suresh & three other accused persons were prosecuted for the offence punishable under Ss. 302, 460/34 of IPC in Sessions Trial No.93/2010 before the Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa. In the said sessions trial, the original applicant Mahadev Das had submitted an application for grant of the aforesaid seized property on supurdnama in his favour stating inter-alia that the deceased Narayan and Phool Bai were his fufa and bua and he being the nearest relative of Narayan and Phool Bai is their successor and accordingly he is entitled for the seized amount and ornaments. However, the Sessions Court vide its order dtd. 28/10/2010, rejected the said application for supurdnama holding that since the issue of successor of the deceased persons is yet to be decided before the Succession Court and therefore the seized property cannot be handed over to the original applicant Mahadev Das. Subsequently, the Sessions Court vide its final order dtd. 8/11/2010 also held that the seized property would be handed over to the person entitled on production of Succession Certificate and further directed that in case no Succession Certificate is submitted within a period of one year, the seized property would be confiscated in favour of the Government.