1 2025:CGHC:12796 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 106 of 2023 1 - Smt. Madhu Uke Wd/o Late Kashiram Uke Aged About 51 Years. 2 - Kirti D/o Late Kashiram Uke Aged About 33 Years. 3 - Niti D/o Late Kashiram Uke Aged About 31 Years. All are R/o Village Arjunda, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ...Applicants. versus 1 - Branch Manager Bhartiya State Bank, Suregaon, Tahsil Dondilohara, District Balod (C.G.). 2 - Smt. Nanda Bai W/o Kashi Ram Uke Aged About 51 Years. 3 - Levid D/o Kashiram Uke Aged About 32 Years. 4 - Rajnikant S/o Kashiram Uke Aged About 30 Years. 5 - Kumari Soniya D/o Kashiram Uke Aged About 27 Years. Respondents No.2 to 5 are R/o Nadgaon Jani, Post Bramhapuri, District Chandrapur (Maharashtra). ... Respondent(s) For Applicants : None. For Respondent No.1 : Shri PR Patankar, Advocate. AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.03.20 09:55:32 +0530 2 For Respondent Nos.2 to 5 : Shri Rajkumar Pali, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 18/03/2025 1. When the matter is called out, none appears on behalf of the applicants. No representation is made. Even in second round, none appears on behalf of the applicants. 2. This Civil Revision has been filed challenging the judgment dated 08.11.2019 passed by the District Judge, Balod District Balod (Chhattisgarh) in Civil Appeal No.1-B/2019 whereby, the first appellate Court while, afÏrming the order dated 17.12.2018 passed by the succession Court i.e. First Civil Judge Class-1, Balod in succession case No.12/2014 whereby, application preferred by the applicants under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925(henceforth “the Act, 1925”) for grant of succession certificate in their favour was dismissed and succession certificate was ordered to be issued in favour of Non-Applicant Nos.2 to 5 herein, dismissed the appeal filed by the applicants. 3. Necessary facts of the case are that applicants filed an application under Section 372 of the Act, 1925, by making averment inter alia, that they are legal heirs of late Kashiram (henceforth “deceased”) who died in harness on 10.06.2014 while working as Special Senior Assistant at Suregaon branch of State Bank of India District Balod (C.G.). There was deposit of Rs.17,21,000/- in the Provident Fund account of the deceased and for the services rendered by him, gratuity amount was quantified to the tune of Rs.9,96,000/-, thus total amount i.e. Rs.27,17,000/- was deposited in the 3 department of Non-Applicant No.1. For which, such an application was preferred. 4. In the written statement filed by the Non-Applicant No.1-Bank it is stated that a loan account was created against various loans taken by the deceased from time to time. In the aforesaid loan account, a recovery of Rs.12,89,934/- was calculated. It has been further averred that the deceased had also made nomination in favour of his father Rishi Ukey and mother Smt. Bhagiratha in equal proportion and he had not changed the nomination during his lifetime. It has been specifically averred that for the remaining amount, a succession certificate could be issued. 5. The other private respondents in their written statement denied the averments of the application and specifically stated that the deceased was married with Non-Applicant No.2-Nandabai and out of their relations, other Non-applicant Nos.3 to 5 were born. It has been further averred that Applicant No.1 was residing with the deceased as his keep and other applicants are not legal heirs of the deceased. 6. Learned trial Court after evaluating the evidence available on record reached to the conclusion that prima facie Non-applicant Nos.2 to 5 are having better title and accordingly succession certificate was issued in their favour. As in the ancestral land also, names of Non- Applicant No.2 to 5 were recorded along with mother and father of the deceased and the applicants have not raised any claim towards the ancestral property. The deceased had also taken a loan for his daughter Soniya from the Bank. The first appellate court afÏrmed the said finding. Hence this Revision. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 4 8. There is concurrent finding of fact that Non-applicant Nos.2 to 5 are having better title than the applicants. Learned First Appellate Court has made an observation at para 31 that for issuing a succession certificate proper adjudication is necessary which is summary in nature and that no rights can be finally decided in such proceedings. Even the trial Court has given liberty to establish their right before the civil court. 9. This Court taking into consideration the scope of enquiry for issuing a succession certificate that no decision under part X of the Act, 1925 upon any question of right between the parties shall be held to be bar the trial of the same question in any suit or proceedings between the same parties and also considering that the trial Court has also taken a security from the Non-applicant Nos. 2 to 5 in whose favour succession certificate was ordered to be issued, does not find any infirmity or illegality in the said finding warranting interference invoking revisional jurisdiction. 10.Accordingly, this Revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash