ORDER ON BOARD

17/11/2021

1. This civil revision preferred under Section 384 (3) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (henceforth ‘the Act’) against the order dated 09/08/2021 passed by the District Judge, Rajnandgaon in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 09/2019 arising out of order dated 26/02/2019 passed by the learned First Civil Judge, Class-I, Rajnandgaon in Succession Case No. 50/2012 whereby the appeal preferred by the applicant has been dismissed and order of the Court below was affirmed in which succession certificate under Section 372 of the Act has been granted to both the applicant and respondent No.2.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant filed an application under Section 372 of the Act as the banks were asking for succession certificate after the death of her father who was having various deposits in the bank accounts in his name. It has been stated that mother of the applicant Smt. Shobha Baid died on 16/09/1996 and her father late Sureshchand Baid died on 26/12/2010. She is the only legal heir of her father. It was further pleaded that after death of her mother Shobha Baid, her father got performed second marriage with Smt. Meena Jain, mother of respondent No. 2/Objector who was widow. Earlier husband of Smt. Meena Jain was Kushal Bhatiya and out of their wedlock, they have one daughter and one son (respondent No.2). Late Sureshchand Baid nurtured respondent No.2 as his son. Smt. Meena Jain died on 16/09/2017. On succession application, respondent No. 2 raised objection that as per will dated 09/09/2010 (Ex-D-2) executed by late Sureshchand Baid, respondent No.2 is also entitled to get his movable property.

3. The learned trial Court framed three issues. After hearing the parties, the Court below held that if the Court fee is duly paid with regard to total consideration of the property then the succession certificate would be issued to the property claimed by the parties. The applicant preferred an appeal and after hearing the appeal against it, the impugned order has been passed. Hence, this revision.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that both the Courts below have not considered the application in proper manner and the order is illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law and is liable to be set-aside. Respondent No. 2 is not biological son of her father and the applicant is the only legal heir of late Sureshchand Baid. The will dated 09/09/2010 (Ex.D-2) is forged and not registered and there is no registered adoption deed, so respondent No.2 is not entitled to get any share in the suit property. He prays to set-aside the impugned order passed by the Courts below.

5. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. The questions for determination before this Court are (1) Whether the impugned order passed by the Courts below is legal, justifiable and proper; and (2) whether the revision is maintainable against the appellate order passed by the District Judge in the succession certificate case.

8. It is an admitted fact that respondent No.2 is the son of Kushal Bathiya and not the biological son of Late Sureshchand Baid. After the death of Sobha Baid in the year 1996, late Sureshchand Baid got married with mother of respondent No.2, Meena Jain. At that time, respondent No. 2 was 1 & ½ years old. Late Sureshchand Baid has nurtured respondent No.2 as his son since his childhood. Even in the school records also, name of late Sureshchand Baid has been recorded as father of respondent No.2. In the said circumstances, the Courts below appreciated the will dated 09/09/2010 (Ex-D-2) which was executed in favour of both the applicant and respondent No.2 to get equal share of late Sureshchand Baid’s self earned movable property. So the finding arrived therein is very logical and proper. Hence, orders passed by the Court below to issue success