CHINTAMANI DEVI Vs. UPENDRANATH DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner instituted a partition suit in the court of the Subordinate Judge at Jalpaiguri, for partition regarding all the properties left by her deceased husband, mahendra Nath Das. This suit was decreed in a preliminary form. It was held that she would get a widow's share in all the properties left by her husband barring the agricultural lands. An appeal was taken to the High Court and that decision was affirmed. Then a compensation roll was prepared according to the provisions of West Bengal act I of 1954 regarding the agricultural property as well and compensation money assessed. Two sons of Mahendra nath, who are opposite parties in this revisional application, made an application, for a succession certificate to get such money. The prayer was allowed. Later they applied for an extended succession certificate. Then the present petition was put in by the widow for revocation of the succession certificate. Her plea was that fraud had been practised by her step-sons because they had suppressed the fact that she also was Mahendra nath's widow. Hence, due to material suppression of fact, envisaged by the provisions of clause (c) of section 383 of Indian Succession Act, the succession certificate was liable to be revoked.

(2.) THE learned Judge considered the objection filed and rejected her application. Hence this revisional application.

(3.) IT has been stated on behalf of the opposite parties that in view of the decision of Mancharam vs. Kalidas in i. L. R. 19 Bom. 821 at page 825, only an appeal lies and not a revision, against the order refusing to revoke a certificate. This argument cannot be accepted. In the Bench case of Mulukh vs. Raj narain reported in A. I. R. 1957 Cal. 687; it has been stated that no appeal lies against the order refusing to revoke a succession certificate.