Sundar Bai vs Suraj Bai

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11490
1 CR-77-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
rd
ON THE 23 OF APRIL, 2026
CIVIL REVISION No. 77 of 2022
SUNDAR BAI
Versus
SURAJ BAI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rishiraj Trivedi - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Kuldeep Pathak - Advocate for the respondents No. 1 & 2.
ORDER
This Civil Revision under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (for short hereinafter referred as 'CPC') r/w Section 388(3) of Indian
Succession Act, 1925 (for short hereinafter referred as 'Indian Succession
Act') has been filed against impugned order dated 29.11.2021 in Regular
Civil Appeal No. 3/2021 whereby appeal preferred by the applicant under
Section 388 of Succession Act against order dated 05.02.2020 passed by the
learned III Civil Judge, Class-I, Khargone in Successin Cse No. 10/2017 has
been affirmed by dismissing Regular Civil Appeal No. 3/2021 by impugned
order.
0 2 . Brief facts of the case are that respondents No. 1 & 2 filed a
succession case under Section 371/372 of Succession Act for succession
certificate claiming therein the money due to Late Sher Singh on account of
his retirement. It was pleaded that the respondent No. 1 is the legally wedded
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 27-04-2026
16:12:30

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11490
2 CR-77-2022
wife of Late Sher Singh but the applicant by taking undue advantage of

illness of Late Sher Singh, got her name entered as the nominee of the
deceased Sher Singh in the bank and the service book of Late Sher Singh.
Upon being asked to produce succession certificate, the respondents No.1 &
2 approached the learned trial Court by filing application under Section
371/372 of Indian Succession Act. It was further pleaded that respondent No.
1 was divorced by husband Late Sher Singh and after the said divorce, the
deceased contacted marital ties with the applicant and deceased Sher Singh
during his lifetime, made a declaration in favour of the applicant declaring
her to be his only nominee. It is on this strength, the applicant also applied
for issuance of succession certificate by preferring a counter claim. Learned
trial Court vide order dated 05.02.2020 (Annexure P/1) dismissing counter
claim of the applicant allowed the application of the respondents No. 1 & 2
declaring her to be entitled for succession certificate. Feeling aggrieved by
the aforesaid order, it was challenged in Civil Appeal, but the Appellate
Court vide order dated 29.11.2021 (Annexure P/2) dismissed the appeal
which gave rise to this revision petition.
03. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Courts
below have committed patent illegality in passing the aforesaid orders.
Jurisdictional error has been committed by the Court below in not construing
real purport of Section 371/372 of Indian Succession Act which prescribes a
summary inquiry and not a full-fledged trial. Evidence available on record
has also not been considered in right perspective. Learned Courts below have
fell into error of law while not taking into consideration that respondent No.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 27-04-2026
16:12:30

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11490
3 CR-77-2022
1 had been separated by Late Sher Singh for a considerable period of time

and the applicant had been living with the deceased Sher Singh as his wife
since long, therefore, she had prima facie best title for issuance of succession
certificate. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on para 12 to 14
of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Vidhyadhari & Ors.
vs. Sukhrana Bai & Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 238. Learned counsel has further
placed reliance on para 9 of the order passed by this Court in Smt. Meeta
Nathaniel vs. Union of India & Ors. 2016 SCC OnLine MP 6016. On the
aforesaid submissions, learned counsel submits that orders passed by Court
below (Annexure P/1 & P/2) may be set aside by allowing this revision
petition and issuing succession certificate in favour of the applicant in the
interest of justice.
0 4 . Per contra learned counsel for the respondents supporting the
impugned order submits that during subsistence of first marriage, applicant
came into contact with Late Sher Singh, but that cannot keep her status of
legally wedded wife, therefore, even if she has not entered her name in the
service record and bank record of Late Sher Singh as nominee, is not entitled
for succession certificate as successor of the deceased. Learned Courts below
have gone through the evidence available on record and after due
appreciation discarded counter claim by allowing application for succession
certificate on behalf of the respondent. On these submissions, learned
counsel urges the Court for dismissing the revision petition as there is no
jurisdictional error committed by the Courts below.
05. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 27-04-2026
16:12:30

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11490
4 CR-77-2022
for the parties and perused the record.

06. It is not in dispute that applicant was resided as wife of Late Sher
Singh for a considerable period of time and that has been corroborated by the
evidence available on record. In para - 16 of the order of the trial Court dated
05.02.2020, it has been mentioned that witness Sangeeta Bai is daughter-in-
law of the applicant states that she is married to Yogesh s/o Sher Singh. She
has termed applicant as her mother-in-law and even after marriage, she is
residing with applicant Sunder Bai. The aforesaid evidence is intact. In the
identical facts, Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Vidhyadhari & others
(supra) has held that for balancing equities that Sukharana Bai be also treated
as one of the legal heirs and besides the four children she would have the
equal share in Sheetaldeen's estate which would be 1/5th and succession
certificate was issued to Vidhyadhari, wife of the deceased but with a rider
that she would protect the 1/5th share of Sukharana Bai in Sheetaldeen's
properties and would handover the same to her. In the case of Vidhyadhari &
Ors. (supra) facts were that Sukhrana Bai was the first wife of Sheetaldeen
and during subsistence of this marriage, Sheetaldeen got married with
Vidhyadhari. Two sons and two daughters were born to Vidhyadhari, they
being Smt. Savitri, Naresh @ Ramesh, Ms.Chanda @ Durga and Baliram,
while Sukhrana Bai does not have any children. In the instant case, children
are from first wife, but it is proved that applicant Sunder Bai was living with
the deceased as his wife for a considerable period of time and deceased Sher
Singh's daughter in law, wife of Yogesh treats Sunder Bai as her own
mother-in-law at the place of first wife of the deceased. Relevant paras 12,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 27-04-2026
16:12:30

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11490
5 CR-77-2022
13, 14 & 15 of the aforesaid order are extracted as under:-

"12. However, unfortunately, the High Court stopped
there only and did not consider the question as to
whether inspite of this factual scenario Vidhyadhari
could be rendered the Succession Certificate. The High
Court almost presumed that Succession Certificate can
be applied for only by the legally wedded wife to the
exclusion of anybody else. The High Court completely
ignored the admitted situation that this Succession
Certificate was for the purposes of collecting the
Provident Fund, Life Cover Scheme, Pension and
amount of Life Insurance and amount of other dues in
the nature of death benefits of Sheetaldeen. That
Vidhyadhari was a nominee is not disputed by anyone
and is, therefore proved. Vidhyadhari had claimed the
Succession Certificate mentioning therein the names of
four children whose status as legitimate children of
Sheetaldeen could not and cannot be disputed.
13. This Court in a reported decision in Rameshwari
Devis case (supra) has held that even if a Government
Servant had contracted second marriage during the
subsistence of his first marriage, children born out of
such second marriage would still be legitimate though
the second marriage itself would be void. The Court,
therefore, went on to hold that such children would be
entitled to the pension but not the second wife. It was,
therefore, bound to be considered by the High Court as
to whether Vidhyadhari being the nominee of
Sheetaldeen could legitimately file an application for
Succession Certificate and could be granted the same.
The law is clear on this issue that a nominee like
Vidhyadhari who was claiming the death benefits
arising out of the employment can always file an
application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession
Act as there is nothing in that Section to prevent such a
nominee from claiming the certificate on the basis of
nomination. The High Court should have realised that
Vidhyadhari was not only a nominee but also was the
mother of four children of Sheetaldeen who were the
legal heirs of Sheetaldeen and whose names were also
found in Form A which was the declaration of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 27-04-2026
16:12:30

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11490
6 CR-77-2022
Sheetaldeen during his life-time. In her application
Vidhyadhari candidly pointed out the names of the four
children as the legal heirs of Sheetaldeen. No doubt that
she herself has claimed to be a legal heir which status
she could not claim but besides that she had the status
of a nominee of Sheetaldeen. She continued to stay with
Sheetaldeen as his wife for long time and was a person
of confidence for Sheetaldeen who had nominated her
for his Provident Fund, Life Cover Scheme, Pension
and amount of Life Insurance and amount of other dues.
Under such circumstances she was always preferable
even to the legally wedded wife like Sukhrana Bai who
had never stayed with Sheetaldeen as his wife and who
had gone to the extent of claiming the Succession
Certificate to the exclusion of legal heirs of
Sheetaldeen. In the grant of Succession Certificate the
court has to use its discretion where the rival claims, as
in this case, are made for the Succession Certificate for
the properties of the deceased. The High Court should
have taken into consideration these crucial
circumstances. Merely because Sukhrana Bai was the
legally wedded wife that by itself did not entitle her to a
Succession Certificate in comparison to Vidhyadhari
who all through had stayed as the wife of Sheetaldeen,
had born his four children and had claimed a Succession
Certificate on behalf children also. In our opinion, the
High Court was not justified in granting the claim of
Sukhrana Bai to the exclusion not only of the nominee
of Sheetaldeen but also to the exclusion of his
legitimate legal heirs.
14. Therefore, though we agree with the High Court
that Sukhrana Bai was the only legitimate wife yet, we
would chose to grant the certificate in favour of
Vidhyadhari who was his nominee and the mother of
his four children. However, we must balance the
equities as Sukhrana Bai is also one of the legal heirs
and besides the four children she would have the equal
share in Sheetaldeens estate which would be 1/5th. To
balance the equities we would, therefore, chose to grant
Succession Certificate to Vidhyadhari but with a rider
that she would protect the 1/5th share of Sukhrana Bai
in Sheetaldeens properties and would hand over the

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 27-04-2026
16:12:30

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11490
7 CR-77-2022
same to her. As the nominee she would hold the 1/5th
share of Sukhrana Bai in trust and would be responsible
to pay the same to Sukhrana Bai. We direct that for this
purpose she would give a security in the Trial Court to
the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
15. It should not be understood by the above that we
are, in any way, deciding the status of Vidhadhari
finally. She may still prosecute her own remedies for
establishing her own status independently of these
proceedings."

07. Similarly, in the case of Smt. Meta Nathaniel (supra) where the
facts were that Late Victor Nathaniel was working in the Vehicle Factory at
Jabalpur had two wives, one Smt. Helen Nathaniel, whom he initially
nominated as his nominee on 2.9.1988, but thereafter changed the
nomination and indicated that Smt. Meeta Nathaniel the present petitioner to
be his wife, nominated her and her two children namely Michael Nathaniel
and Nikita Nathaniel as his nominee. Accordingly, even though his first wife
Smt. Helen Nathaniel was alive he nominated his second wife present
petitioner and her two children as nominee in the service book. On
his superannuation and after his death, a dispute arose with regard to
payment of family pension and at the instance of present petitioner Smt.
Meeta Nathaniel and daughter Nathaniel a succession certificate was granted
which was put to challenge. In paragraph - 9 of the judgment this Court
observed that it is not proper for the learned Tribunal to reject claim of the
petitioner only on account of the fact that the second marriage, in absence of
any provision of Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 is unsustainable. Once
the employee has nominated the present petitioner as a person entitled to
receive the benefit of his pension and when succession certificate has been
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 27-04-2026
16:12:30

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11490
8 CR-77-2022
issued after hearing all concerned, we see no reason to refuse to grant benefit

to the present petitioner.
08. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, this Court is of the view
that orders passed by the Courts below are bad in law, therefore, the same are
hereby set aside. Succession certificate will be issued in favour of applicant,
who has been nominated by the deceased. Other legal heirs, if any, are
aggrieved by the same, they may still prosecute their own remedies for
establishing their own status independently of these proceedings.
0 9 . In the result, the revision petition is allowed. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
soumya

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 27-04-2026
16:12:30