Bhola Mirdha @ Bhola Turi vs Arjun Turi

Gurusharan Sharma, J.—Admittedly one Chatur Turi had two wives. From the first wife, he got two sons, namely, Sarjoo Turi and. Sumeshwar Turi. and one son, namely Arjun Turi from the second wife. Sarjoo left behind three sons, Bhola, Shankar and Sattan. Sumeshwar, who was a chaukidar, died issueless on 17.5.1991.

One of the sons of Sarjoo Turi, namely, Bhola Mirdha @ Bhola Turi filed an application u/s 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') for grant of succession certificate for the estate left by his uncle late Sumeshwar Mirdha @ Sumeshwar Turi.

Arjun Turi aforesaid filed an objection thereto, claiming himself to be the step brother of the deceased and as such being the nearest heir of the deceased, entitled to the succession certificate.

The court below found that Sumeshwar had no class I heir. Arjun was his class II heir in category No. 2, whereas Bhola being the brother''s son came in category No. 4 of class II heir.

By the impugned order dated 27.6.1996, passed in Succession Case No. 2 of 1995/4 of 1995, the District Judge, Deoghar held the objector, Arjun Turi to be the successor of late Sumeshwar Turi and the prayer of Bhola Mirdha @ Bhola Turi for grant of succession certificate in his favour was rejected.

This appeal has, therefore, been preferred u/s 384 of the Act by said Bhola Mirdha @ Bhola Turi.

Heard the parties and with their consent this appeal is disposed of at the stage of hearing under Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The counsel for the Appellant submitted that Bhola Mirdha @ Bhola Turi was admittedly a son of the full brother of deceased Sumeshwar Turi, whereas Arjun Turi was his step brother. Bhola being full blood nephew must exclude the half blood step brother, Arjun and as such the impugned order is fit to be set aside and succession certificate may be granted to Bhola Mirdha @ Bhola Turi.

It is not in dispute that full blood brother has got preference in succession in comparison with a half blood brother, i.e. a step brother, where father was same, but mothers were different. In the present case dispute of succession is not between full brother and step brother, whereas, it is case where son of a fail blood brother is claiming preference against the half blood brother of the deceased.

In my view, the claim of the Appellant is not tenable as in case of preference in succession between half blood brother of the deceased and a son of his full blood brother, half blood brother, being in the category of a brother of the deceased has certainly preference in inheritance.

I, therefore, find no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed under Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.