RAHUL KUMAR DHRUVE Vs. PUBLIC GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following reliefs:-

(2.) The applicant has preferred this revision being aggrieved by the order dtd. 4/11/2024 whereby an application filed by respondent No. 3 Lallaram for grant of succession certificate under Sec. 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 on account of death of Ranjana Devi Pradhan and to get amount of Rs.15,00,000.00 deposited in the account of late Ranjana Devi Pradhan has been partly allowed by the 1st Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mungeli vide its order dtd. 10/9/2024 and against the said order when an appeal was preferred by said respondent No. 3 Lallaram the appeal was allowed in favour of Lalla Ram and for the entire amount succession certificate has been directed to be issued in favour of Lallaram. The present applicant has challenged the order passed by the appellate Court while setting aside order of the 1st Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mungeli while allowing the appeal.

(3.) Brief facts of the case, is that, the applicant has preferred this revision, being aggrieved by the order dtd. 4/11/2024, whereby an application filed by respondent No. 3, Lalla Ram, for the grant of a succession certificate under Sec. 372 of the Indian Succession Act, on account of the death of Ranjana Devi Pradhan, to claim Rs.15,00,000.00 deposited in her account, was partly allowed by the 1st Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mungeli, vide order dtd. 10/9/2024. When an appeal was filed by Lalla Ram against the said order, the appellate Court allowed the appeal and directed that the succession certificate be issued in his favor for the entire amount. The applicant challenged the appellate Court's order setting aside the trial Court's decision. Briefly, the applicant had filed an application under Sec. 372 of the Indian Succession Act seeking a succession certificate to claim Rs.15,00,000.00 deposited in the Bank of India, Mungeli Branch, following the death of Ranjana Devi Pradhan. It was contended that the deceased's son-in-law, Lalla Ram, was entitled to the amount; however, the bank manager advised obtaining a succession certificate. The trial Court, after considering the pleadings and evidence, held that both the applicant and respondent No. 3 were entitled to the amount but ultimately awarded it to respondent No. 3 based on his nomination by the deceased. Aggrieved, Lalla Ram appealed, and the appellate Court held that nomination alone does not entitle a person to the property, and as a near maternal relative of the deceased under Sec. 15(2)(b) of the Indian Succession Act, he was entitled to inherit the property. The trial Court erred in conferring ownership on the nominee, who is merely a custodian. Evidence showed that Lalla Ram, being the father-in-law of the deceased, was the rightful heir, and the appellate Court rightly issued the succession certificate in his favor. The revisional Court found no illegality or perversity in the appellate Court's order, as it had correctly applied the law, considered the evidence, and followed the principles established under the Hindu Succession Act and Supreme Court precedents. Accordingly, the revision filed by the applicant is dismissed, and the appellate Court's order is upheld.