IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 12 OF JANUARY, 2026 CIVIL REVISION No. 650 of 2025

SMT ANITA

Versus

SMT ROZBEE

Appearance:

Shri Manas Mani Verma - Advocate for the petitioner.

ORDER the deceased was brother of petitioner is not in dispute. The other succession case was filed by respondent No. 1, who claims to be the wife of deceased Anand Chaurasia.

By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the final order

dated 29-04-2025, passed by the appellate court in deciding appeal under Section 384, Indian Succession Act, against the order dated 20-12-2022, passed in MJCS UV No. 10/2017, whereby the application of the respondent No. 1 under Section 383 of Act of 1925 had been rejected. Now the appellate court has remanded the matter back to the trial court to decide the matter afresh. The appellate court has taken note of the position that two rival succession cases had been filed, one by the petitioner and one by the respondent No. 1, and while the case at instance of respondent No.1 is pending, the case filed by the present petitioner stoof decided. Now the appellate court has directed that both the cases be clubbed together

and decided together after remand.

2. The two succession cases have arisen out of death of late Anand

Chaurasia, who as per petitioner was brother of petitioner, and the fact that

3. One succession case, i.e. case No. 21 of 2016 was filed by respondent No.1, claiming herself to be class I heir being wife of deceased Anand Chaurasia, and succession case No. 22 of 2016 was filed by the present petitioner, claiming that the deceased died without leaving behind any class I successor and she being sister is the class II successor. She impleaded herself as applicant and her two brothers as respondents in the application. She did not implead the present respondent No.1.

4. The two applications proceeded separately and while one filed by respondent No.1 remained pending, the other one filed by the petitioner was allowed, resulting thereby that the succession certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner. Interestingly, in the case instituted by the petitioner, she had not included respondent No.1 as party, though in the case instituted by the respondent No. 1 the petitioner had been impleaded as party and the appellate court has now taken note of this position that once the petitioner was impleaded as party in the succession case instituted by respondent No. 1, if the petitioner was with clean hands, then she should have also impleaded the respondent No.1 as party in her succession case, but she prosecuted her succession case without impleading the respondent No. 1.

5. After the succession certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner, respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 383 of Act of 1925 for cancellation of the succession certificate, which was dismissed by the trial court on 20.12.2022, but in appeal the said order has been reversed and the matter has been remanded back to the trial court.

6. The counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the respondent No. 1 is a Muslim lady and without conversion she could not have married a Hindu under Hindu traditions, and she could only have married under a Special Marriage Act, but she has failed to place on record either of the two contingencies and therefore she could not have been deemed to be legally wedded wife of deceased who was a Hindu male. It is further argued that the respondent No.1 was even married to a Muslim male previously and no divorce had taken place and for this reason also she could not have validly married the deceased.

7. In the opinion of this court, the petitioner can very well put all these facts before the trial court and the trial court would take into account all these facts which would be raised by the petitioner before the trial court.

8. The appellate court has directed to try both the succession cases together and directed the trial court to take a decis