Pardeshi vs Bihula Bai

Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.1.2018 passed by the District Judge, Janjgir-Champa in Civil Appeal No.53A of 2017 arising out of the order dated 9.8.2017 passed by the Civil Judge Class I, Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa in Succession Suit No.1 of 2012, whereby the Trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the Applicant/plaintiff for grant of succession certificate, this revision has been filed under Section 384(3) of the Indian Succession Act.

Facts of the case are that the Applicant/plaintiff made a succession application before the Civil Judge Class I, Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa pleading that he is the son of Rambharos who initially married Dwarika Bai and out of their wedlock the Applicant/plaintiff born. Rambharos was also known as Rambagas. Subsequently, he also married Non-Applicant/defendant Bihula Bai and out of their wedlock Non-Applicants No.2, 3 and 4 born. Rambharos was working in the company of Non-Applicants No.6 and 7. He died on 29.3.2011. In his service record, Rambharos did not disclose the name of the Applicant/plaintiff as a nominee. Therefore, after death of Rambharos, an application for grant of compassionate appointment was preferred by the Applicant before Non-Applicant No.6 which was dismissed. Thereafter, an application for succession certificate for the amounts deposited in the office of SECL and for compassionate appointment was submitted by the Applicant which was dismissed by the Civil Judge Class I, Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa on 9.8.2017. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred by the Applicant/plaintiff which was also dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 19.1.2018 passed by the District Judge. Hence, this revision by the Applicant/plaintiff.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant/plaintiff submitted that the impugned judgment dated 19.1.2018 is illegal, arbitrary and perverse and, therefore, it is liable to be set aside. The Applicant in order to establish his claim has adduced evidence and it is established that he is son of Dwarika Bai, i.e., the wedded wife of Rambharos and, therefore, he is entitled to get compassionate appointment as well as other benefit, i.e., amounts which were given to Non-Applicants No.1 to 4 by Non-Applicant No.6.

Learned Counsel appearing for Non-Applicants No.1 to 5 and Non-Applicants No.6 and 7 opposed the arguments raised on behalf of the Applicant.

I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records of both the Courts below.

According to the pleadings of the Applicant/plaintiff, Rambharos was also known as Rambagas. But, from perusal of the evidence adduced by the parties, it is well established that there is no documentary evidence available on record to show that Rambharos was also known as Rambagas and further, in all the documents submitted by the Applicant the name of his father is mentioned as Rambagas. Since there is no evidence available on record to show that Rambharos was also known as Rambagas, both the Courts below have rightly arrived at the conclusion that the Applicant has failed to prove the fact that Rambharos was also known as Rambagas.

There is no dispute on the point that the name of the mother of the Applicant is Dwarika Bai. According to the pleading of the Applicant, Dwarika Bai is first legally wedded wife of Rambharos and out of their wedlock the Applicant born. To establish this fact, the best witness could be Dwarika Bai, but, the Applicant has not produced her before the Trial Court. Therefore also, both the Courts below have rightly arrived at the conclusion that the Applicant has failed to prove that he is the son of Rambharos. Looking to the entire evidence adduced by the parties, both the Courts below have rightly arrived at the conclusion that the Applicant has failed to prove the fact that he is the son of Rambharos. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Courts below is according to the evidence available on record. I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the finding.

Resultantly, the instant revision is dismissed. The impugned judgment dated 19.1.2018 passed by the District Judge and the order dated 9.8.2017 passed by the Civil Judge are affirmed.