A brother is not a Class I heir and cannot claim a succession certificate against the deceased’s daughters.

In brief

The question

Whether the applicant, being the brother of late Ganga Prasad Puraina, was entitled to claim a share in the deceased’s assets and succession certificate merely because their common mother had died?

The court held

The High Court held that Bisnath Puraina, being the brother of late Ganga Prasad Puraina, was not a Category I successor and was therefore not entitled to claim a share in the deceased’s assets.

It also directed

The revision was rejected at the motion stage, and the appellate order dated 31 October 2025 recognising respondents Nos. 2 and 3 as entitled to obtain the succession certificate was left undisturbed.

01Facts

Respondents Nos. 1 to 3—the widow and daughters of late Ganga Prasad Puraina—filed Succession Case No. 35/2021 seeking a succession certificate in respect of his assets.

The trial court partly allowed the application on 9 May 2024. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 challenged that order in Civil Appeal No. 191/2024, which was allowed by the Fifth District Judge, Durg, on 31 October 2025; respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were held entitled to obtain the succession certificate.

¶ 2

Bisnath Puraina, the brother of late Ganga Prasad Puraina, filed the present revision under Section 384(3) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, claiming a share in the deceased’s assets on the ground that their common mother, Kholbahrin Puraina, had died.

¶ 1, 4

02Issues

i.Whether the applicant, being the brother of late Ganga Prasad Puraina, was entitled to claim a share in the deceased’s assets and succession certificate merely because their common mother had died?

¶ 3–4, 7

ii.Whether the order of the appellate court granting entitlement to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 warranted interference in revision under Section 384(3) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, read with Section 115 CPC?

¶ 1–3, 7–8

03Law Applied

The Court exercised its revisional jurisdiction under Section 384(3) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, read with Section 115 CPC.

¶ 1

It applied the principle that entitlement to a succession certificate depends upon the applicant’s status as a legally recognised successor to the deceased.

¶ 7

A brother of the deceased is not a successor falling within Category I and, therefore, cannot claim entitlement on that basis where nearer successors are available.

¶ 7

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Succession Act, 1925 Section 384

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 115

04Reasoning

The applicant’s claim was based solely on his relationship as the deceased’s brother and on the death of their mother.

The Court rejected this reasoning, holding that the applicant’s status as a brother did not make him a Category I successor of late Ganga Prasad Puraina.

¶ 7

Consequently, the death of the parties’ mother did not independently confer upon the applicant a right to share in the assets of the deceased.

Since respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were the deceased’s daughters and had been held entitled to the succession certificate by the appellate court, the High Court found no ground for revisional interference.

¶ 3, 7–8

05Holding

The High Court held that Bisnath Puraina, being the brother of late Ganga Prasad Puraina, was not a Category I successor and was therefore not entitled to claim a share in the deceased’s assets.

¶ 7

¶ 7–8

LawLens.Chhattisgarh High Court

Original Court PDF