Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - In this first appeal, Vikas Rathee and Vijay Rathee have assailed judgment dated 03.01.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat in petition filed by the appellants herein under Section 372 of the India Succession Act, 1925 for grant of succession certificate.

2. Facts in this case are not in dispute.

3. Kitab Singh was employee of respondents No.2 to 4. He died in harness. Succession certificate was claimed regarding his service benefits. Petitioners are sons of Kitab Singh from his first wife Birmati. After her death, Kitab Singh re-married with Santosh-respondent No.5 and out of this wedlock, Komal-respondent No.6 was born.

4. Case of the appellants is that after death of Kitab Singh, respondent No.5 Santosh re-married with one Mukesh and gave birth to a male child out of the said wedlock. The appellants alleged that only they and respondent No.6 are entitled to service benefits of Kitab Singh whereas respondent No.5 on account of her re-marriage with Mukesh is not entitled to any share in the said amount.

5. Learned trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 03.01.2011 ordered grant of succession certificate in favour of appellants and respondents No.5 and 6 in equal shares. Feeling aggrieved, instant appeal has been preferred.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file.

7. Counsel for the appellants contended that respondent No.5, on account of her re-marriage with Mukesh, is not entitled to any share in the amount in question. The contention cannot be accepted. It is undisputed that respondent No.5 is widow of Kitab Singh. Consequently she is also among his class I heirs. On her subsequent re-marriage, after death of Kitab Singh, respondent No.5 could not be divested or disinherited of the estate left by Kitab Singh. Inheritance opens on the death of the owner. Inheritance never remains in abeyance. On the death of Kitab Singh, all his four class I heirs i.e. appellants and respondents No.5 and 6 inherited the disputed amount in equal shares. Consequently on subsequent remarriage of Santosh with Mukesh, she could not be divested of the aforesaid share in the disputed amount left by Kitab Singh. The contention raised by counsel for the appellants, therefore, cannot be accepted.

8. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed in limine.

---------0.B.S.0------------