ORDER :

1. Heard.

2. This Civil Revision has been preferred against the order dated 13.12.2023 passed in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.14/2023 by the Additional District Judge (FTC), Korba, District Korba (C.G) whereby, the succession certificate issued in favour of legal heirs of respondent No.2 passed in Succession Case No.03/2018 order dated 06.07.2023 by the First Civil Judge Class-I, Korba, District Korba was affirmed.

3. Brief facts of the case are that non-applicants/respondent No.1 and 2 had preferred an application for grant of succession certificate alleging that their father namely Late Govardhan Sahu was posted as Laboratory Attendant in a school run by the respondent No.4 and he died on 13.09.1989 at Korba. Respondent No.1 is the daughter from the first wife of Late Govardhan Sahu and respondents No.2 and 3 are the children from his second wife. Late Smt. Kunti Bai is the third wife of Late Govardhan Sahu and she had no children. After the death of Late Govardhan Sahu, Kunti Bai has got compassionate appointment on the post of Peon in the department of respondent No.4. Thereafter, she left respondents No.2 and 3 and respondent No.1 took care of them. Applicant has alleged that in the service book of Late Kunti Bai, the names of the applicant and her sister were mentioned as nominees, as their father Santaram is the brother of Late Kunti Bai and she had adopted Laxmeen Sahu and Ishwari Sahu, therefore, the applicant and her sister Laxmeen Sahu are entitled for the amount deposited before the employer in the accounts of Employees’ Provident Fund to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- and of the amount of gratuity of Rs.2,50,546/- in aggregate Rs.6,50,546/-. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence found that as per Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the claim of respondent No.2 is maintainable and the applicant has no right. So in such summary enquiry, succession certificate in favour of the legal heirs of respondent No.2 was issued and the said finding was affirmed by the Appellate Court. Hence, this Revision.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that Late Smt. Kunti Bai had made nomination in favour of the applicant in the service record and therefore, she is the only person entitled for the succession certificate and the trial Court as well as Appellate Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. Non-applicant No.2/Respondent No.2 has not proved that he is the son of Late Govardhan Sahu and further, the appointment of Kunti Bai is on regular basis and not on compassionate basis and the property earned by her is a self-acquired property. Even though, a succession certificate has been issued in favour of the applicant vide order dated 26.10.2017 passed in Succession Case No.09/2017 by the First Civil Judge Class-I, Korba, therefore, issuance of another succession certificate in favour of another person is bad in the eye of law. Hence, prays to allow the revision and set aside the impugned order of the Appellate Court and the trial Court.

5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the documents annexed with the revision carefully.

6. It is well settled that the procedure under the Indian Succession Act is a summary in nature and any adjudication under Part X does not bar the same question being raised between the same parties in a subsequent suit or proceeding. Even Section 387 permits the filing of a suit or other proceeding even though a succession certificate might have been granted. In the matter of Joginder Pal Vs. Indian Red Cross Society and Others (2000) 8 SCC 143 the nature of the summary enquiry of the succession case and its effect in the subsequent suit has been analysed and the relevant para 15 and 16 read thus:-

“15. Part X of the India Succession Act deals with Succession Certificates. Sections 373, 383(e) and 387 are relevant. They read as follows:

"373. Procedure on application.- (1) If the District Judge is satisfied that there is ground for entertaini