Uma Tiwari Vs Smt. Pooja Chouhan

1 - Smt. Pooja Chouhan D/o Laxman Chouhan Aged About 25 Years R/o VillageKandalibahar, At Present R/o Kaliba, Tehsil- Kunkuri, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Bharti Chouhan D/o Laxman Chouhan Aged About 26 Years R/o VillageKandalibahar, At Present R/o Kaliba, Tehsil- Kunkuri, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Aditya Chouhan S/o Laxman Chouhan Aged About 29 Years R/o VillageKandalibahar, At Present R/o Kaliba, Tehsil- Kunkuri, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Aspatiya Chouhan @ Mamta W/o Laxman Chouhan R/o Village- Kandalibahar, At Present R/o Kaliba, Tehsil- Kunkuri, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

5 - Director General Of Police/senior Police Superintendent District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Office Sub Inspector And Senior Superintendent Of Police, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

6 - Public At Large Through The Collector Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

For Applicant	: Mr. Purendra Khichariya, Adv.
For Respondents No. 1 to 3	: Mr. Virendra Verma, Adv.
For respondent No. 5 &	Mr. Anish Tiwari, Dy. Govt. Adv. with Ms.
6/State	Akansha Verma Dabhadkar, PL
Respondent No. 4 has died.

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order On Board

¶16

12-5-2026

¶17

Challenge in this civil revision is made to the order (Annexure A-1)

¶18

2

¶19

dated 5-5-2025 passed in Civil Appeal No. 1A/2024 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Kunkuri, Distt. Jashpur whereby learned Appellate Court has upheld the order (Annexure A-2) passed in Succession Case No. 2/2021 by the Civil Judge Class – 1, Kunkuri, Distt. Jashpur, whereby learned trial Court held that, the applicant herein and respondents No. 1 to 3 are entitled to get equal share of the amount deposited in the name of late Laxman Ram Chouhan.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, in nomination form (Annexure A-3 Colly), late employee Laxman Ram Chauhan had made the applicant Uma Tiwari his nominee as his wife, therefore, the applicant alone is entitled to get all the amount payable to the deceased employee, but learned trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have wrongly held that, the applicant and respondents No. 1 to 3 are entitled to get equal share of the said amount. Hence, he prays that, instant civil revision may be admitted for hearing.

¶21

In reply, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 and the State support the impugned order.

¶22

It is not in dispute that, deceased has made the applicant Uma Tiwari his nominee in nomination form submitted in the department stating her to be his first wife, but learned counsel for the applicant did not object that respondents No. 1 to 3 are children of late Laxman Ram Chauhan born from his first wife Aspatiya Chouhan/respondent No. 4 herein, as such, respondents No. 1 to 3 are class 1 heir of deceased Laxman Ram Chouhan.

¶23

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shakti Yezdani v. Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar, [(2024) 4 SCC 642] while considering the issue of

¶24

3

¶25

nominee has held in para 41 as under :-

¶26

“41. A consistent view appears to have been taken by the courts, while interpreting the related provisions of nomination under different statutes. It is clear from the referred judgments that the nomination so made would not lead to the nominee attaining absolute title over the subject property for which such nomination was made. In other words, the usual mode of succession is not to be impacted by such nomination. The legal heirs therefore have not been excluded by virtue of nomination.”

¶27

Having considered the aforesaid observation made by Hon’ble Apex Court and further considering the fact that respondents No. 1 to 3 being children of the deceased employees born from his first wife /respondent No. 4, both the Courts below have not committed any illegality in declining the claim of the applicant that she be declared sole authority to get all the dues payable to the deceased employee. In view of above, this Court is not inclined to entertain this civil revision. The same being sans substance, deserves to be and is hereby rejected at motion stage.

¶28

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶31

pathak

Uma Tiwari v. Smt. Pooja Chouhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uma Tiwari v. Smt. Pooja Chouhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lukesh Kumbhakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sateeshan Vs Jugga Devi (Dead) through L.Rs. Lucky Sanklecha

Sahdev Biswas Vs Jugga Devi ( Dead) through Lrs. 1.1 Lucky Sanklecha

Smt. Rajkumari Sahu Vs Sushil Sahu

M/S Central Automobiles Vs Saurabh Nathani

Maa Jagataran Fuels and Energy Vs State of Bank of India