Taramati Babasaheb Shinde And ... vs Saraswati Babasaheb Shinde And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 11157 Bom

2023:BHC-AUG:23674


                                                   1                        28-CRA-213-16.odt


                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.213 OF 2016

                          TARAMATI BABASAHEB SHINDE AND ANOTHER
                                             VERSUS
                          SARASWATI BABASAHEB SHINDE AND OTHERS
                                                 ...
                       Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Milind M. Patil (Beedkar)
                       Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Mr. P.S. Agrawal
                                                 ...

                                               CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.

DATE : 31st OCTOBER, 2023

PER COURT :

1. Heard learned counsels for the respective parties.

2. The applicants have impugned the two concurrent

judgments refusing them the succession certificate. Applicant No.1

claims that she was a legally married wife of deceased Babasaheb

s/o Karbhari Shinde and they had blessed with applicant No.2.

3. Learned counsel for applicants vehemently argued that

both the Courts have erred in appreciating the evidence. They had

ample material before them to believe that applicant No.1 was

legally wedded wife of deceased Babasaheb Shinde and applicant

No.2 is their son. By denying the status of applicant No.1 as a wife,

it has created chaos and she had been deprived of her legal right to

succeed and receive service benefits of deceased Babasaheb.

Learned counsel for applicants has vehemently argued that the

SVH

2 28-CRA-213-16.odt

purport of the inquiry under Section 372 of the Indian Succession

Act, was not properly understood by both the Courts. The

applicants had a better title. Both the Courts misread the evidence

and the law. Learned counsel for applicants has referred to the

findings of both Courts and prayed to allow the revision application.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents, who have

also claimed to be wife and children of deceased Babasaheb Shinde,

has vehemently argued that on appreciating evidence in summary

inquiry, both Courts have correctly held that the applicants have

failed to prove that they were successors of Babasaheb Shinde. He

would submit that, before the alleged matrimonial relationship with

deceased Babasaheb, applicant No.1 had two marriages and

applicant No.2 was a child from her first husband. She had filed

application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. which was disposed of

without merit. However, in that case, Babasaheb had denied

relation with applicant No.1 as husband and wife, in his reply. It has

been proved on record that during the subsistence of so-called

relationship, she was getting benefit of the Government schemes in

the name of her earlier husband. Tahsildar has been examined and

it is proved that she was getting the benefits of Government

Schemes under the name of her first husband.

5. Perused both the impugned judgments and orders. It

SVH

3 28-CRA-213-16.odt

appears that the Courts have correctly appreciated the evidence

and in a summary inquiry correctly held that respondents had

better title. No errors have been committed in both the judgments

and orders. Unfortunately, the parties are fighting for a succession

certificate since 2010 and the applicants did not go to the Civil

Court to get their right determined. There is no bar to file civil suit,

though succession certificate is denied to them. Be that as it may,

there is nothing arguable before the Court in this revision. Hence,

the revision stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

(S. G. MEHARE, J.)

SVH