The classification of heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, particularly the distinction between Class I and Class II heirs, is crucial in determining entitlement to succession certificates.

JUDGMENT :

Vishal Mishra, J.

With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard.

1. The present Civil Revision under Section 115 of C.P.C. has been filed challenging the order dated 20th February, 2020 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Gwalior, whereby confirming the order dated 10.07.2019 passed by Vth Civil Judge, Class-I, Gwalior in M.J.C. Succession No. 18 of 2016 filed by Smt. Kiran Sharma, respondent No. 4 herein.

2. It is alleged that the petitioner is the brother of deceased Radhe Shyam Sharma and has preferred an application under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act claiming issuance of succession certificate with respect to the properties left behind by his brother the deceased Radhe Shyam Sharma. The application filed by the petitioner was registered as MJC No. 21/2016. Another application seeking succession certificate was filed by respondent No. 4 Kiran Sharma, claiming herself to be the daughter of the deceased Radhe Shyam Sharma and she has also prayed for issuance of succession certificate. Both the applications were consolidated for analogous hearing by the learned Civil Judge and were considered and decided by a common order dated 10.07.2019.

3. It is alleged in the application filed by the revisionists that he is the brother of deceased Radhe Shyam Sharma, who has passed away while in service. He was having a daughter Kiran Sharma, who was disowned by him as without his permission she has left the house and gone somewhere. The declaration with the aforesaid fact was published in a Daily News Paper. It is argued that he is the nominee in L.I.C. policy of the deceased Radhe Shyam Sharma and also in nominee in the Account hold by deceased Radhe Shyam Sharma. He has also received the expenses towards the funeral from the department and leave encasement to the tune of Rs. 1,53,541/- vide cheque No. 009777 dated 31.10.2015. It is alleged that as late Radhe Shyam Sharma has left her daughter and made him a nominee in the documents as well as in the accounts maintained by him, in such circumstances, he is the only legal successor of late Radhe Shyam Sharma. He has also got executed a registered will in favour of the revisionists which is at Exhibit P/3. It is submitted that in such circumstances, he is entitled for succession certificate from the competent Courts for which he has applied. As on the objection being made by respondent No. 4, the department is not releasing the other service benefits of late Radhe Shyam Sharma to the revisionists.

4. The learned trial Court has not considered the aforesaid aspects of the case and has relied upon the Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1925, and give a succession certificate to the revisionists holding that mere nomination in the documents does not entitle him to the service benefits as the legal heir of Class I is still surviving i.e. the respondent No. 4 who is the daughter of the deceased Radhe Shyam Sharma and in terms of Rule 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which deals General Rules of succession in the case of males and provides that a property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter. (a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class I of the Schedule and as per Class I of the Schedule the daughter i.e. respondent No. 4 is a Class I and she is surviving. Therefore, no such certificate can be issued in favour of the revisionists. Accordingly, the application filed by the revisionists claiming succession certificate was rejected and on the contrary, the application filed by the respondent No. 4 claiming the succession certificate on the ground that she is the only the Class I heir surviving and was entitled for all the benefits of late Radhe Shyam Sharma. The learned trial Court has arrived at the conclusion that she is entitled for succession certificate and accordingly directed for grant of succession certificate in favour of respondent No. 4.

5. The counsel for the revisi