1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 99 of 2025 1 - Neelima Sahu Wd/o Late Purnanand Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Club Para, Ward No. 30, Mahasamund, Police Station, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 2 - Minor Garvit Aged About 3 Years Through His Guardian I.E. Mother Namely Neelima Sahu, Wd/o Late Purnanand Sahu, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Club Para, Ward No. 30, Mahasamund, Police Station, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Shankarlal Sahu S/o Late Chunnilal Sahu Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Torla, Post Bhurka, Police Station Gobranayapara, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Branch Manager Life Insurance Corporation, Branch Mahasamund Raipur Road, Mahasamund District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 3 - Branch Manager Bank Of Baroda, Branch Torla, Post Bhurka, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - General Public (Who So Ever Is Concern With This). 5 - Smt. Dulari Sahu W/o Shankar Lal Sahu Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Torla, Post Bhurka, Police Station Gobranayapara, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) 1 & 5 : Ms. Anamika Jain, Advocate. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 For Respondent/LIC : Mr. Syed Imtiaz Ali, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Amartya Bajpai, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 06/11/2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicants has prayed for following reliefs:- “It is therefore most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant revision and the impugned order dated 17.12.2024, passed by the learned 1 Additional District Judge, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, passed in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. H-03/2024 (Annex. A- 1), may kindly be modified and the application preferred by the applicants under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 may kindly be allowed and succession certificate may kindly be issued in respect of amount to the tune of Rs. 54,27,930/- in favor of the applicants, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the applicants have filed an application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, inter alia, on the ground that applicant No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the deceased, late Shri Purnanand Sahu. It is averred in the application that their marriage was solemnized on 11.03.2021 at Mahasamund as per Hindu rites and rituals, and out of the said 3 wedlock, a male child named Garvit was born, who is presently about six months old. On 18.07.2022, the husband of applicant No. 1, namely late Shri Purnanand Sahu, met with an accident and succumbed to the injuries. The application further states that late Shri Purnanand Sahu was a Galaxy Club Member in the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) and was working as an agent. It is explained that a Galaxy Club Member is an agent whose non-bonus commission exceeds Rs. 10 lakhs, and during his lifetime, the deceased used to receive hereditary commission amounts from his policies, which were credited to his Bank of Baroda account. It is also mentioned that the deceased held six LIC policies and had an amount of Rs. 6,67,000/- deposited in his bank account, to which the applicants claim entitlement. After the death of late Shri Purnanand Sahu, when respondent No. 1 applied before respondents No. 2 and 3 for disbursement of the said amounts, the cause of action arose, and on these grounds, the applicants prayed for issuance of a Succession Certificate in their favour. In response, respondents No. 1 and 5 filed a joint reply asserting that the deceased had nominated respondent No. 1, Shankar Lal Sahu, as the nominee in all the insurance policies and the savings bank account, making him solely entitled to the benefits, and that the applicants had suppressed this fact, rendering their application liable to dismissal. Respondent No. 2, in its reply, admitted that five LIC policies stood in the name of late Shri Purnanand Sahu and that a total sum of Rs. 9,12,847/- was 4 payable under them. It was also clarified that Policy No. 388132366 belonged to one Memichand Manjhi, not the deceased. Respondent No. 2 further admitted that late Shri Purnanand Sahu was a Galaxy Club Member who earned non- bonus commission and group insurance benefits amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/-, and that for the financial year 2021–22, he had received Rs. 24,17,712/-. Therefore, the successors of late Shri Purnanand Sahu were entitled to Rs. 19,12,847/- in total, including Rs. 9,12,847/- towards policy benefits and Rs. 10,00,000/- towards commission and insurance, to which respondent No. 2 had no objection. Respondent No. 4 remained ex parte, while respondent No. 3 did not file any reply. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned trial court framed three issues. In support of their claim, the applicants examined Neelima Sahu as AW-1, who produced documents marked Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-7, and examined Vasudev Pansari, Senior Branch Manager, LIC, Mahasamund, as AW-2, who produced five policy documents marked Ex. P-8 to Ex. P-12. Respondent No. 1 examined himself as NAW-1, and no other witnesses were examined on his behalf. Upon considering the evidence and material on record, the learned trial court, vide order dated 07.02.2024, held that non- applicant No. 5 was also a legal heir of late Shri Purnanand Sahu along with the applicants and that they were jointly entitled to Rs. 12,72,847/- towards five LIC policies and Rs. 10,00,000/- from the deceased’s bank account, totaling Rs. 22,72,847/-, subject to 5 payment of requisite court fees, and accordingly directed issuance of a succession certificate. Being aggrieved, the applicants preferred a Miscellaneous Appeal before the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Mahasamund, under Section 384 of the Act, challenging the said order. In appeal, it was contended that the trial court failed to consider the Galaxy Club and Group Insurance benefits and the hereditary commission of the deceased and did not render findings regarding the policy amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- under Policy No. 388132366 or his death in a motor accident. It was also urged that non-applicant No. 5 had not asserted any claim, and therefore, findings in her favour were erroneous. The learned lower appellate court, vide its order dated 17.12.2024, partly allowed the appeal, holding that, in addition to the amounts awarded by the trial court, the appellants and respondent No. 5 were also entitled to receive Rs. 3,00,000/- under Policy No. 388132366 and Rs. 10,00,000/- towards Galaxy Club membership and group insurance benefits. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the succession certificate filed by the applicants was duly allowed by the concerned Trial Court, however, the amount determined therein was incorrectly calculated, compelling the applicants to prefer an appeal. It is further submitted that the appellate Court, while partly allowing the appeal, has also failed to take into consideration the said error in computation. The principal grievance of the applicants pertains to the incorrect assessment of the amount 6 relating to the insurance policies marked as Exhibits P/8 to P/12, which has not been properly considered by either Court, thereby causing serious prejudice and resulting in the present appeal. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) submits that even if there exists any error in calculation or if the amount required to be considered has not been duly taken into account, the appropriate course of action would be to remit the matter back to the concerned Succession Court. It is contended that the said Court should be directed to reconsider the issue raised by the applicants with respect to the correct amount payable under each of the insurance policies and to pass a reasoned order after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties in accordance with law. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the submissions advanced by both parties, this Court deems it appropriate to remand the matter to the Court of the 1st Civil Judge, Class I, Mahasamund, District-Mahasamund for a fresh consideration of the issues raised by the applicants in relation to the disputed amount involved in the case. The learned trial Court shall re-examine the matter strictly in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties, and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order on all aspects of the dispute. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed 7 expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. Let the record of the trial Court, along with a copy of this order, be transmitted forthwith to the concerned authorities for necessary information and compliance in accordance with law. 8. The parties are directed to appear before the succession Court on 8th December, 2025. 9. The concerned succession Court may consider the policy and the amount involve in each of the policies which is under dispute. 10. With this observation and direction, the revision stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat