Smt. Shantabai Wd/O Siddarth Chahande And Others v. Smt. Satyafulabai Wd/O Siddarth Chahande And Others

2026:BHC-NAG:570 31.SA.55.2025.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.55 OF 2025 Smt. Shantabai Wd/o Siddarth Chahande and others .Vs. Smt. Satyafulabai Wd/o Siddarth Chahande and others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order Mr. R.D. Hajare, Advocate for appellants (Appointed). CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.

DATE : 14/01/2026 1.

The appellants, who were the original applicants, filed an application for grant of succession certificate, as legal heirs of late Siddarth Chahande which is concurrently dismissed by both the learned courts. 2.

It is not in dispute that the marriage of Satyafulabai/respondent No.1 was solemnized with Siddarth Chahande and that, while the said marriage was in subsistence, appellant No.1/Shantabai claims to have married the said Mr. Siddarth Chahande. It is also duly proved that appellant Nos.2 and 3, namely Sarika and Kavita, are the daughters of appellant No.1, begotten from her first husband, namely Babarao Lokhande and not from Siddarth Chahande. The application for succession certificate filed by the appellants/applicants was rejected by the learned trial Court on this count and for the same reason, First Appeal preferred by the present appellants also came to be dismissed.

31.SA.55.2025.odt 3.

In view of the aforesaid, it needs to be held that appellant No.1 cannot claim to be the legally wedded wife of deceased Siddarth Chahande. Likewise, appellant No.2 and 3 are also not real daughters of Siddarth Chahande. The respondent No.1 is legally wedded wife of deceased Siddarth Chahande and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are daughters of respondent No.1, begotten from the said Siddarth Chahande.

4.

In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders do not warrant any interference. Second Appeal is therefore dismissed.

5.

Fees of the learned Advocate for the appellants be quantified as per the Rules.

(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) C.L. Dhakate