( 1 ) THIS revision is on behalf of the defendant and is directed against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judges Court, Adoni, allowing the appeal of the plaintiff and decreeing the suit, which was dismissed by the trial Court.

( 2 ) THE dispute between the parties relates to the recovery of the amount due under a promissory note, Ex. A-1, which was executed by the defendant in favour of one late Ayyanna. The respondent-plaintiff claiming to be the nearest heir of late Ayyanna, obtained a succession certificate, Ex. A-2, dated 20-10-59 in O. P. No. 13/59 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Adoni, in respect of the above promissory note debt. On the basis of this succession certificate he filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 552. 50p. against the petitioner-defendant. The petitioner denied that the plaintiff was the nearest heir of late Ayyanna. He also pleaded discharge of the suit debt by payment of the amount to Ayyannas widow. Mallamma before her re-marriage, under a receipt, Ex. B-1, dated 6-5-58. It was further averred that the issue of a succession certificate in favour of the plaintiff was not conclusive. The learned District Munsif held that the plaintiff was not the nearest heir to Ayyanna and was not entitled to maintain the suit. He also held that the plea of discharge was true. In the, result, the learned District Munisif dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiff, the lower appellate Court did not agree with the view of the trial Court and decreed the suit. Hence this revision is filed on behalf of the defendant.

( 3 ) IN this revision, it is contended by Sri N. M. Sastry, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the lower appellate Court had not taken into account the fact that Mallamma, the widow, was the only heir to Ayyanna and that, in her presence, the plaintiff cannot claim to be the nearest heir. He next contended that the lower appellate Court erred in holding that the plea of discharge was not true when Mallamma admitted in her evidence that she received the amount due under the promissory note. On behalf of the other side, it is contended by the learned counsel that, when the plaintiff-respondent holds a succession certificate, he alone, under the law, would be entitled to recover the amount and that the lower appellate Court was right in holding so. On the question whether the payment of the amount to Mallamma, the widow, would be a valid discharge, the learned counsel contended that it would not be a valid discharge.

( 4 ) THE first point that falls for consideration is whether the plaintiff has a right of action for the recovery of the suit amount. As stated earlier, the plaintiff has filed the suit on the basis of a succession certificate issued to him. Under Section 381 of the Indian Succession Act, such certificate would be conclusive as against the persons owing such debts or liable on such securities. But the grant of certificate can be revoked as provided under Section 383 of the said Act on the grounds stated therein. Under Section 384 of the said Act, a right of appeal is also provided. It follows, therefore, that the Act is a self-contained Act and makes ample provision for the aggrieved persons, who were either parties to it or were not parties. Admittedly, the defendant was not a party to the O. P. proceedings; but it cannot be denied that he had notice of the proceedings. On his own admission in the written statement, he filed I. A. No. 672/59 to implead him as a respondent; but that application was dismissed. He also filed another application in the same O. P. to implead Mallamma, which was also dismissed. But he did not get those orders revised and it is also his admitted case that he did not apply for revocation of the certificate under Section 383 of the Act. The appellant therefore, cannot challenge the right of the plaintiff to sue. My attention is drawn to Section 387 of the Act and contended that grant of a certificate would not d