IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the succession case is limited to determining the legal heirs' entitlement as per the Hindu Succession Act, and separate legal proceedings can be initiated for other issues.

ORDER :

The applicant in this civil revision under Section 384(3) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 14.9.2021 (Annexure R/1) passed by District Judge, Bastar in Misc. Civil Appeal No.04/2021 whereby his appeal was dismissed upholding the order dated 3.2.2020 of the First Civil Judge, Class-1, Jagdalpur in Succession Case No.08/2019 by which the application of respondents No. 1 to 3 under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act was allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 to 3/applicants filed an application under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 before the trial court for issuing succession certificate in favour of respondent No.1/applicant for receiving her share of deposited amount in the bank account in the name of Late S.P. Mandal who is her husband and father of respondents No. 2 & 3 and the present applicant. Late S.P. Mandal had deposited Rs.8 lacs in his bank account in State Bank of India, Farmers Branch, Dharampura Road, Jagdalpur and which increased to Rs.12,25,675/- on the date of maturity i.e. 26.12.2020. He had not nominated anyone for receiving the said amount and died on 28.12.2017 leaving behind his wife, two sons and a daughter. The applicant in his written statement contested the claim of the respondents No. 1 to 3 saying that he being legal heir of the deceased also has right in the said deposited amount. However, the learned trial Court taking into consideration the overall evidence on record allowed the application of respondents No. 1 to 3 and held that the applicant herein was ex-parte during trial, hence he is not entitled for his share vide order dated 3.2.2020 (Annexure R/2) and considering the fact that respondents No. 2 & 3 have relinquished their share in favour of respondent No.1, directed for issuance of succession certificate in her favour. The applicant thereafter preferred an appeal against the said order, however, by the impugned order dated 14.9.2021 learned District Judge, Jagdalpur dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the trial Court. Hence this revision.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned orders passed by both the learned Courts being illegal and perverse are liable to be set aside. The applicant is a Hindu and is governed by the laws of Hindu Succession Act, therefore, he being son of Late S.P. Mandal is entitled to his share of the deposited amount under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act which deals with general rules for succession in the case of males. Though it is an admitted position that the applicant is the son of the deceased but even then he is denied his legitimate share in the deposited amount of the deceased. The respondents have stated that the applicant is working in NMDC, Kirdul and is earning his own income but it does not restrict the applicant from asking for his fair share.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3 strongly opposes the prayer of the applicant and submits that the applicant is residing separately along with his family and has kept all the sale proceeds received after alienating the property in the name of his father. He is working in NMDC and is not taking care of his mother. Furthermore, after filing the written statement, he remained ex-parte and did not submit any documentary or oral evidence in support of his case. Therefore, both the Courts having thoroughly examined the overall evidence on record came to the conclusion that the applicant has defrauded the respondents by taking the whole sale proceeds of the land of his father. Moreover, the proceedings under Section 372 of the Act are summary in nature and rights of the parties are not determined in such proceedings. The question of title has to be decided by the competent civil Court and not under the present proceedings. Hence, the instant revision being without any substance is liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties