KUMARI ISHWARI SAHU Vs. AMRIKA SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) This Civil Revision has been preferred against the order dtd. 13/12/2023 passed in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.14/2023 by the Additional District Judge (FTC), Korba, District Korba (C.G) whereby, the succession certificate issued in favour of legal heirs of respondent No.2 passed in Succession Case No.03/2018 order dtd. 6/7/2023 by the First Civil Judge Class-I, Korba, District Korba was affirmed.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that non-applicants/respondent No.1 and 2 had preferred an application for grant of succession certificate alleging that their father namely Late Govardhan Sahu was posted as Laboratory Attendant in a school run by the respondent No.4 and he died on 13/9/1989 at Korba. Respondent No.1 is the daughter from the first wife of Late Govardhan Sahu and respondents No.2 and 3 are the children from his second wife. Late Smt. Kunti Bai is the third wife of Late Govardhan Sahu and she had no children. After the death of Late Govardhan Sahu, Kunti Bai has got compassionate appointment on the post of Peon in the department of respondent No.4. Thereafter, she left respondents No.2 and 3 and respondent No.1 took care of them. Applicant has alleged that in the service book of Late Kunti Bai, the names of the applicant and her sister were mentioned as nominees, as their father Santaram is the brother of Late Kunti Bai and she had adopted Laxmeen Sahu and Ishwari Sahu, therefore, the applicant and her sister Laxmeen Sahu are entitled for the amount deposited before the employer in the accounts of Employees' Provident Fund to the tune of Rs.4,00,000.00 and of the amount of gratuity of Rs.2,50,546.00 in aggregate Rs.6,50,546.00. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence found that as per Sec. 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the claim of respondent No.2 is maintainable and the applicant has no right. So in such summary enquiry, succession certificate in favour of the legal heirs of respondent No.2 was issued and the said finding was affirmed by the Appellate Court. Hence, this Revision.