IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA

th

ON THE 16 OF JANUARY, 2026 CIVIL REVISION No. 19 of 2026 ASHOK SHARMA Versus PUSHPA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sanjay Kumar Bahirani - Advocate for applicant.

ORDER

1. This Civil Revision under Section 115 of CPC has been filed against the order dated 2/12/2025 passed by Second Additional Judge to the Court of First District and Additional Judge, Ashok Nagar, in MCA No.30/2024, as well as the order dated 26/4/2024 passed by First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ashok Nagar, in case number MJC-SUC-04/2022.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present revision, in short, are that the applicant as well as respondent No.1 and deceased Kaushal Kishore are real siblings. Gayatri (mother of applicant, respondent No.1 and deceased Kaushal Kishore) died on 02/04/2022. She had two bank accounts and a locker. In bank account maintained in Union Bank of India, a total amount of Rs.54,798/- was deposited, whereas in Punjab National Bank, a total amount of Rs.4,88,790/- was deposited and also had one locker. The applicant was made nominee.

3. It appears that the applicant withdrew the amount deposited in Union Bank of India; therefore, respondents No.1 and respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of succession certificate. The applicant opposed their prayer.

4. However, the trial Court, by impugned order dated 26/4/2024 passed in case number MJC- SUC-04/ 2022, held that the applicant as well as respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly entitled to receive the entire amount deposited in the savings bank account No.0027000100118923 in Punjab National Bank and it was also directed that the applicant as well as respondents No.1 and 2 shall furnish security to the tune of Rs.1-1 Lac with an undertaking that, in case if any other legal representative comes forward, they shall deposit the amount in the Court. It was also directed that, on payment of court fees, a succession certificate be issued in favour of the applicant as well as respondents No.1 and 2.

5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court, the applicant preferred an appeal, which too has been dismissed by the appellate Court.

6. Challenging the order passed by the Courts below, it is submitted by counsel for applicant that Gayatri had a locker in her name and had two bank accounts, i.e., one in Union Bank of India and another in Punjab National Bank. In Union Bank of India, Rs.54,798/- were deposited, which has already been withdrawn by the applicant on the strength of nomination. However, the nomination in respect of the bank account maintained in Punjab National Bank was found to be suspicious; therefore, a succession certificate has been issued in favour of the applicant as well as respondents No. 1 and 2. It is submitted that both the Courts below have committed a material illegality by holding that the nomination of applicant in the bank account of Smt. Gayatri maintained in Punjab National Bank was suspicious.

7. Considered the submissions made by counsel for applicant.

8. Whether the nomination of the applicant in the bank account of Gayatri maintained in Punjab National Bank is suspicious or not, is not material, for the simple reason that a nominee would not become the owner of the property, and he would only hold the property as a trustee on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased person.

9. The Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarbati Devi & Another v.

Smt. Usha Devi, reported in (1984) 1 SCC 424, has held as under :

"4. At the outset it should be mentioned that except the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Kesari Devi v. Dharma Devi [AIR 1962 All 355 : 1962 All LJ 265] on which reliance was placed by the High Court in dismissing the appeal before it and the two decisions of the Delhi High Court in S. Fauza Singh v. Kuldip Singh [AIR 1978 Del 276] and Uma Sehgal v. Dwarka Dass Sehgal [AIR 1982 Del 36 : ILR (1981) 2