Chattisgarh High Court
Pardeshi vs Bihula Bai on 2 May, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Civil Revision No.38 of 2018
Order Reserved on : 8.3.2022
Order Passed on : 2.5.2022
Pardeshi, aged about 41 years, son of Rambagas, Caste Satnami, R/o
Village Korbi, P.S. and Tahsil Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa,
Chhattisgarh
---- Applicant
versus
1. Bihula Bai, aged about 57 years, widow of Rambharos, Caste Satnami,
2. Hariram, aged about 39 years, son of Rambharos, Caste Satnami,
3. Pyare Lal, aged about 37 years, son of Rambharos, Caste Satnami,
4. Gorelal, aged about 35 years, son of Rambharos, Caste Satnami,
5. Hemlata, daughter of Jagat Ram, Caste Satnami,
All R/o Village Korbi, P.S. and Tahsil Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa,
Chhattisgarh
6. General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Korba, District
Korba, Chhattisgarh
7. Sub Area Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Dhelwadih,
District Korba, Chhattisgarh
8. General Public
---- Non-Applicants
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Applicant : Shri N.K. Chatterjee, Advocate
For Non-Applicants No.1 to 5 : Shri S.P. Sannat, Advocate on behalf
of Shri Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate
For Non-Applicants No.6 and 7 : Shri Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
C.A.V. ORDER
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the records of both the Courts below.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
Sd/-
(Arvind Singh Chandel)
JUDGE
Gopal
