1 2025:CGHC:4690 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 11 of 2025 1 - Smt. Indrakumari W/o Late Samarnath Markam, Aged About 43 Years 2 - Kumari Rashmi Marco D/o Late Samarnath Markam, Aged About 22 Years All are by By Caste - Gond, At Present R/o Village Wadrafnagar, Thana Basantpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. Permanent R/o Village And Thana Chalgali, Tehsil Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Kamla W/o Late Samarnath, Aged About 50 Years 2 - Shiv Kumari D/o Late Samarnath, Aged About 35 Years 3 - Kumari Jyoti D/o Late Samarnath, Aged About 30 Years. 4 - Rupendra S/o Late Samarnath Aged About 28 Years All are By Caste - Gond, At Present R/o Muktipara, Ward No. 04, Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. Permanent R/o Village Thana Chalgali, Tehsil Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 5 - Superintendent Of Police, Police District OfÏce-Balrampur, District Balrampur -Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 6 - General Public ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2025.01.28 16:12:43 +0530 2 (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Applicants : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate For Respective Respondents : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate and Mr. Dilman Rai Minj, Government Advocate SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 27/01/2025 1. This Revision has been preferred under Section 384(3) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 27.11.2024 passed by the Second District Judge, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.8/2024, whereby, while rejecting the appeal, the order dated 11.2.2020 passed by the Civil Judge Class-I, Balrampur, Place – Ramanujganj, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj- in Succession Case No.04/2015, has been modified to the extent that during the First Misc. Appeal, since Vikram (Son) died, Applicant No.2 and the respondents would be equally entitled to receive the retiral dues, which has been quantified to the tune of Rs.8,81,632/-. The other findings recorded by the trial Court have been afÏrmed. The First Appellate Court has further dismissed the cross-objection. 2. Necessary facts of the case are that the present applicants preferred an application to obtain Succession Certificate under the Indian Succession Act by making averments inter alia that Samarnath Markam (since deceased) was an ASI in the ofÏce of 3 Sub Divisional ofÏcer (Police) Balrampur. By suppressing the fact that he was married earlier, Samarnath Markam performed second marriage with Applicant No.1. Out of the wedlock, Applicant No.2- daughter and Vikram were born. Samarnath Markam died in harness on 27.8.2015 and Vikram died during pendency of the First Appeal. Applicant No.1, during the lifetime of Samarnath Markam, moved an application for maintenance before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wadrafnagar, which was dismissed. Against which, a Revision was preferred and the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj allowed the Revision Petition in respect of minor son and daughter of Applicant No.1 i.e. Applicant No.2. However, in order to gain the retirement dues, when the respondents made efforts, the Applicants also preferred an application for grant of Succession Certificate for getting such retiral dues in their favour. 3. Admittedly, the relation between Respondent No.1 (first wife) and late Samarnath Markam, has not been disputed and further, out of their marriage, respondents 2 to 4 were born. The trial Court and the First Appellate Court have given a concurrent finding that Applicant No.1 has not established her relationship as the second wife of Late Samarnath Markam in a summary proceeding and reached to a conclusion that Applicant No.2 was born out of the relationship between Applicant No.1 and Late Samarnath Markam. The First Appellate Court accordingly directed for distribution of retiral dues between Applicant No.2 and respondent No.1 to 4 in an equal manner. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant would submit 4 that this petition may be disposed of with liberty to Applicant No1 to file a separate Civil Suit for establishing/in order to prove her relationship with late Samarnath Markam as his second wife. He would fairly submit that after such adjudication, the entitlement of pension shall be governed according to the Pension Rules and for which, a Succession Certificate cannot be issued because family pension is paid only to a person who is entitled to receive the pension as per the rules. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that he is not challenging the other findings as the Appellate Court has given a direction to distribute the retiral dues equally amongst Applicant No.2 and the respondents after obtaining the Succession Certificate. 5. Mr. Mahobia, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4, who also appears on Caveat, does not dispute the aforesaid submissions. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the Revision. 7. The purpose of the grant of Succession Certificate is not to give litigant parties an opportunity of litigating contested questions of title to property. The object of the Act is to obtain the appointment of some person to give a legal discharge to debtors to the estate for the debts due. It was not intended that nice questions of law as to the rights of the parties to the estate of the deceased should be decided on an application under it. So the practice is to issue a certificate to the person who has prima facie the clearest title to the succession, such as the natural heir, and to leave a person, whose claim to a superior title is on reasonable grounds disputed, to establish that title by regular suit. 5 8. For the afore-stated reasons, this Court deems it appropriate to accept the submission put-forth by learned counsel for the Applicants with regard to grant of liberty in favour of Applicant No.1 to file a regular Civil Suit for establishing her relationship with Late Samarnath Markam as his second wife. The other findings have not been challenged. 9. Accordingly, taking into consideration the object of the Succession Act in respect of issuance of the Succession Certificate, this Revision is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of Applicant No.1 to file a regular Civil Suit, if so advised. 10. Consequently, the order passed by the First Appellate Court is afÏrmed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Shyna