The due execution and attestation of a Will must be proved, and suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will must be addressed before granting a Succession Certificate.

ORDER :

1. Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 384(3) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter shall be referred to as, 'the Act of 1925'), Bahura and others, who are applicants in both the instant civil revisions, have preferred these civil revisions calling in question the common judgment dated 5.4.2018 passed by the District Judge, Janjgir-Champa by which the learned District Judge has allowed the appeal filed by Darasram granting Succession Certificate in his favour and further dismissed the appeal preferred by the applicants herein.

2. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both the civil revisions, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. Two persons namely Narayan and Phool Bai were husband and wife and were issueless. They were murdered and the police had seized total Rs.7,20,102/- as well as some silver & gold ornaments amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- approximately from their house. In the murder case of Narayan and Phool Bai, one Suresh & three other accused persons were prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 460/34 of IPC in Sessions Trial No.93/2010 before the Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa. In the said sessions trial, the original applicant Mahadev Das had submitted an application for grant of the aforesaid seized property on supurdnama in his favour stating inter-alia that the deceased Narayan and Phool Bai were his fufa and bua and he being the nearest relative of Narayan and Phool Bai is their successor and accordingly he is entitled for the seized amount and ornaments. However, the Sessions Court vide its order dated 28.10.2010, rejected the said application for supurdnama holding that since the issue of successor of the deceased persons is yet to be decided before the Succession Court and therefore the seized property cannot be handed over to the original applicant Mahadev Das. Subsequently, the Sessions Court vide its final order dated 8.11.2010 also held that the seized property would be handed over to the person entitled on production of Succession Certificate and further directed that in case no Succession Certificate is submitted within a period of one year, the seized property would be confiscated in favour of the Government.

4. The original applicant Mahadev Das died during pendency of Civil Suit No.26/2010 before the Succession Court and thereafter the Civil Suit was pursued by his legal heirs i.e. the applicants Bahura, Laladas, Deepakdas, Dineshdas, Sarojini & Rajni before the Succession Court. In the said Civil Suit, the non-applicants No.1 to 5 and 7 therein i.e. Afisar Das, Manager Das, Parvati, Bhurudas, Padumdas and Shanti Bai, supported the claim of the original applicant Mahadev Das for grant of Succession Certificate in his favour and relinquished their right over the seized property. However, on the objections raised by one Darasram before the Succession Court, he was impleaded as non-applicant No.8 in the said Civil Suit on his objection stating inter-alia that since the deceased Narayan and Phool Bai were issueless and he was looking after and taking care of them, they had jointly executed an unregistered Will in his favour on 15.4.2004 in respect of their movable and immovable properties and accordingly he is entitled for grant of Succession Certificate.

5. Learned Succession Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its order dated 14.12.2017 rejected the Civil Suit filed by the applicants Bahura & others under Section 372 of the Act of 1925 for grant of Succession Certificate and the objection raised by the non-applicant No.8 Darasram in the said Civil Suit, against which Darasram filed Civil Appeal No.2A/2018 and Bahura & others preferred Civil Appeal No.20A/2018 before the Appellate Court where both the said Civil Appeals were clubbed together for analogous hearing.

6. The Appellate Court, however, by its order dated 5.4.2018