1. Since a common issue is involved in both the revisions, they are decided by this common order.

2. The revisions have been preferred against the judgment dated 29.8.2017 passed by the District Judge, Mahasamund in Civil Appeal No. H-25 of 2016, whereby the Learned District Judge has dismissed the civil appeal so far as it related to the Petitioners herein but allowed the appeal in part so far as it related to Respondent No. 3 herein. The civil appeal was preferred against the common order dated 21.11.2016 passed by the 1st Civil Judge Class-I, Mahasamund dismissing Succession Suit No. S-14 of 2014 filed by the Petitioners and Respondent No. 3 herein and allowing Succession Suit No. S-02 of 2015 filed by Respondents No. 1 and 2 herein.

3. Facts of the case, as projected, are that Anand Mishra was employed under the Government of Chhattisgarh in Education Department. He died on 21.9.2014. He left behind him his mother Kumodini Mishra (Respondent No. 3 herein) and two wives Smt. Rekha Mishra (Petitioner No. 1 herein) and Smt. Surekha Mishra (Respondent No. 1 herein) as also two sons Aaryan Mishra (Petitioner No. 2 herein) and Aarom Mishra (Petitioner No. 3 herein) from his wedlock with Rekha Mishra and one daughter Ku. Vaishnavi Mishra (Respondent No. 2 herein) from his wedlock with Surekha Mishra.

4. After the death of Anand Mishra, two applications under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (henceforth ‘the Act of 1925’) were filed for grant and issuance of a succession certificate to receive the amount of Rs. 15,56,350/- of deceased Anand Mishra deposited with his employer, i.e. in the District Education Office, Mahasamund as his arrears of pay amounting to Rs. 8,04,505/- + amount of Group Insurance Scheme of Rs. 1,50,000/- + saving fund of Group Insurance of Rs. 47,845/- + Death-cum-Retiral benefit of Rs. 3,32,400/- + Leave Encashment of Rs. 2,21,600/-. One application, which was registered as Succession Suit No. S-14 of 2014 was moved by Kumodini, Aaryan, Aarom and Rekha against Surekha and Vaishnavi on the ground that Rekha is wife of the deceased and Aaryan and Aarom are children from her wedlock with the deceased and Kumodini is mother of the deceased. Surekha and Vaishnavi, in their joint written statement, denied the averment of the suit that Rekha is wife of the deceased and Aaryan and Aarom are his children. The other application, which was registered as Succession Suit No. S-02 of 2015 was moved by Surekha and Vaishnavi stating that they are the successors of the deceased. In their suit, they further averred that though Kumodini is mother of the deceased yet she was not dependent upon him and, therefore, she has no entitlement to get any succession certificate.

5. The Trial Court rejected the Succession Suit No. S-14 of 2014 on the ground that Surekha is legally wedded wife of the deceased and Rekha is his second wife and, therefore, Rekha is not entitled to get any succession certificate. Regarding Aaryan and Aarom, it has been held by the Trial Court that they are illegitimate children of the deceased is prima- facie not established. Regarding Kumodini, it has been held by the Trial Court that she was not dependent upon the deceased and, therefore, she is not entitled to get any succession certificate. The Trial Court allowed Succession Suit No. S-02 of 2015 in favour of Surekha and Vaishnavi.

6. Being aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, Kumodini, Aaryan, Aarom and Rekha preferred an appeal being Civil Appeal No. H-25 of 2016. Vide the impugned judgment dated 29.8.2017, the Appellate Court dismissed the civil appeal so far as it related to Rekha, Aaryan and Aarom, but allowed the appeal in part in favour of Kumodini. Against this judgment, Rekha, Aaryan and Aarom have preferred the present revisions.

7. Shri B.P. Sharma, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that even if Rekha, according to the finding arrived at by the Trial Court, is considered to be second wife of deceased Ana