The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of Section 383 of the Succession Act, 1925, regarding the revocation of a succession certificate obtained by fraudulent means and the requirements for granting a new certificate.

1. The subject matter of challenge in this revision is the order-dated 28.10.2010 passed by First Additional District Judge, Chhatarpur in M.A. No.01/10 whereby the petitioners’ appeal under Section 384 of the Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the order-dated 15.04.2010 passed by Third Civil Judge Class I, Chhatarpur in Succession Case No.13/08, was dismissed and revocation of succession certificate granted to them and the direction for issuance of the certificate in favour of the respondent were affirmed.

2. Ramdas Sullere, who died on 28.12.2003 at Kulpahar Distt. Mahoba (U.P.), was superannuated on 31.07.2003 from the post of Peon in the Tahsil Office at Chhatarpur. The respondent claims to be his legally-wedded wife whereas petitioner no.1, the husband of petitioner no.2, is the son of his nephew namely Harsahay.

3. While asserting that –

(i) By way of application-dated 29.08.2002 addressed to the Tahsildar, the deceased had nominated them in place of the respondent to receive provident fund, gratuity, family pension and other post-retirement benefits and

(ii) The respondent had lived with the deceased for a few days as a mistress and thereafter, had started residing with another person the petitioners filed an application, under Section 372 of the Act, for succession certificate in respect of the amounts deposited in the name of the deceased with the bank as well as in the Provident Fund Account. However, they did not prefer to implead the respondent as one of the parties to the proceedings.

4. As none had appeared to contest the application, it was allowed vide order-dated 31.01.2005 passed by Second Civil Judge Class-I, Chhatarpur in Succession Case No.44/04 and accordingly, the succession certificate was issued in favour of the petitioners.

5. On 22.02.2005, the respondent moved an application, under Section 383 of the Act, for revocation of the succession certificate on the ground that it was obtained fraudulently without informing her and by suppressing the material facts. In that application, she also prayed for grant of such a certificate in her favour. According to the respondent, her marriage was solemnized with Ramdas as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and therefore, being his heir of the nearest degree, only she was entitled to grant of succession certificate.

6. In reply, the petitioners explained that they had not arrayed the respondent in their application for succession certificate as she was not the legally-wedded wife of the deceased. Attention was also invited to the fact that the respondent did not raise any objection before the Succession Court in response to the public notice advertised in local newspaper ‘Sandhya Prakash’ on 28.12.2004. They also pointed out that the respondent was able to receive family pension on the basis of a forged death certificate suggesting that Ramdas had expired at Chhatarpur.

7. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, learned Civil Judge, for the reasons assigned in the order-dated 15.04.2010, not only revoked the succession certificate in question but also directed issuance of succession certificate in favour of the respondent on furnishing the requisite stamp duty. As indicated already, the appeal preferred by the petitioners was also dismissed by way of the order impugned in the instant revision.

8. The first contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the findings that the respondent is the legally-wedded wife of the deceased and the petitioner no.1 is not one of his successors, though concurrent, suffer from serious error of jurisdiction inasmuch as there was no clear and cogent evidence to establish that the marriage was performed with proper ceremonies and in due form according to law applicable to the parties.

9. It is well-settled that the revisional jurisdiction can not embark upon re-appreciation of evidence unless the finding of fact is, on the face of it, illegal or perverse. However, the factual