Sakku vs Damayanti

Rohit Arya, J.—Heard.

This Civil Revision u/s 115 CPC by defendant is directed against the judgment dated 21/02/2014 in civil appeal No. 10A/2014 by III Additional District Judge, Guna whereby the order dated 30/06/2011 in Succession case No. 08/2002 (Suraj Bai and others Vs. Damayanti Bai & ors) by I Civil Judge, Class-I, Guna District Guna has been appropriately modified by resorting to thoughtful discussion and comprehensive reasoning which lead to impeccable conclusion which in the opinion of this Court does not warrant any interference in revisional jurisdiction.

Facts necessary for disposal of this revision petition in nutshell are to the effect that one Komal Prasad, a State Government employee serving in the Veterinary Hospital, Guna (hereinafter referred to as the ''department'') had died on 08/09/2001. Admitted fact is two-fold; the defendant No. 8, Suraj Bai is mother of Komal Prasad; and secondly, Komal Prasad has left behind him an amount of Rs. 1,23,730/- lying with the department. Respondent No. 2, Moti Bai claimed to be wife of late Komal Prasad and respondents No. 3 and 4 are sons and daughter born of said wedlock and, therefore, she claimed the aforesaid amount lying with the department.

Appellant, Sakku @ Sakuntala Bai also claimed to be legally wedded wife and respondents No. 8 and 9 are daughter and son born of said wedlock. Respondent No. 1, Damayanti Bai is also said to be wife of late Komal Prasad who has separated herself after divorce. As such, two wives with their children and mother on the other hand are staking claim over an amount of Rs. 1,23,730/- lying with the department.

Trial Court held entitlement of appellant alongwith respondents No. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 and apportioned 1/8th share in favour of appellant. On appeal, First appellate Court has modified the order and excluded the appellant from the group of persons as regards entitlement to receive the apportioned share out of the money lying in the department.

Having perused the judgment impugned, this Court is of the opinion that the first appellate Court has not committed any illegality while excluding the claim of appellant. In fact, children born out of different wives who claimed to be wives of late Komal Prasad have been held entitled alongwith mother of late Komal Prasad. Appellant who claimed to be wife of late Komal Prasad was also married to one Suresh Rajak and she claims to have been divorced but no evidence has been produced by her to establish this fact. As such, the Court below has found that she married with late Komal Prasad without having any divorce under the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, as parties are Hindus by religion, accordingly, the claim of appellant to have married with late Komal Prasad was negated.

In view of the aforesaid, finding of the first appellate Court is justified in holding the group of persons as regards entitlement to receive the apportionment of share in respect of money lying in the department, i.e., 1/7th of share by each person. Hence, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction by this Court.

Revision petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Certified copy as per rule.