1. Invoking revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 388 (3) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act,1925') read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC'), the applicant herein has filed this revision calling in question the impugned order by which the Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal affirming the order of the trial Court dated 12-02-2013 granting succession certificate in favour of the non-applicants herein.

2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual back-drop:

3. Manikrao Bhosale who was working in the District Court on the post of Process Server, died in harness and his wife Smt. Shyam Bai was granted compassionate appointment who also died on 19-01-2008. The successor and Legal Representative of Shyam Bai filed an application under Section 372 of the Act, 1925 for grant of succession certificate in their favour in which the present applicant–Premlal Devangan was made a party and he was also noticed. Upon notice being served, the present applicant appeared before the Succession Court and made a counter claim holding that he is the only son of Shyam Bai from her first husband and, therefore, he being the only son and the legal representative of the deceased, is entitled for succession certificate in his favour.

4. The succession Court by its order dated 12-02-2013 allowed the application and granted succession certificate in favour of Santoshrao Bhosale and others, the non-applicants herein, and further held that Premlal Devangan – applicant herein is not the successor or the legal representative of deceased Shyam Bai.

5. Feeling aggrieved against the order of the succession Court granting succession certificate in favour of non-applicants No.1 to 4, applicant herein preferred Misc. Appeal before the Appellate Court. The appellate Court by its order affirmed the finding of the trial Court and rejected the appeal filed by the applicant herein finding no merit in the same. Questioning the legality, validity and correctness of order, this revision petition has been preferred by the applicant herein.

6. Shri Suresh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that concurrent finding recorded by the two Courts below holding that non-applicants No.1 to 4 are entitled for succession certificate, is perverse and contrary to the record. He further submits that deceased Shyam Bai has not only executed a will in his favour but also made nomination in his favour under the LIC policy and the Bank and also submitted nomination before the employer/competent authority and as such concurrent findings are perverse to the record which is liable to be set aside.

7. Shri Ravindra Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for non-applicants, while opposing submission made by learned counsel for the applicant would submit that concurrent findings recorded by the two courts below holding that non-applicants No.1 to 4 are entitled for succession certificate and, therefore, granting certificate is a concurrent finding based on evidence available on record and interference is called for in revisional jurisdiction under Section 388(3) of the Act, 1925.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the court below.

9. Admittedly, both the Courts have concurrently held that non-applicants No.1 to 4 are the legal representatives and successors of deceased Shyam Bai and entitled for succession certificate and both the Courts below have further held that Premlal Devangan, present applicant is not the son of Late Smt. Shyam Bai. Concurrent finding recorded by two Courts below, in the considered opinion of this Court is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record. The revisional Court cannot interfere in the concurrent findings of the two courts below, particularly when there is no perversity in the finding so recorded.

10. It is pertinent to note that procedure for making enquiry fo