This appeal is filed under Section 384 of the Indian Successions Act, 1925 (for short ‘the Act’) against the order of the learned District Judge, Vizianagaram dated 19.12.2003 in I.A.No.1475 of 2002 in S.O.P.No. 221 of 1997.

2. Respondents 1 and 2 filed O.P.No.221 of 1997 in the Court of District Judge, Vizianagaram for a Succession Certificate in respect of the amounts payable to late Satyam, who was employed as driver in A.P.S.R.T.C. The first respondent claims to be his wife and the second respondent, as his son. The employers, respondents 3 and 4 herein were also impleaded in the O.P. Petitioner claims that she is the daughter of late Satyam. According to her, her father did not marry anyone after death of her mother and that respondents 1 and 2 have nothing to do with her father. She was impleaded as third respondent in the O.P.

3. On a consideration of the material before it, the trial Court granted Succession Certificate in favour of respondents 1 and 2 through its order dated 17.5.1999.

4. Even before the O.P. was filed by respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner filed O.S.No.209 of 1996 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Srungavarapukota for a declaration that the first respondent is not the wife of late Satyam and the second respondent herein is not his son. Respondents 1 and 2 herein remained ex parte in the suit. An ex parte decree was passed in O.S.No.209 of 1996 on 27.7.2001. Based on this decree and Judgment, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1475 of 2002 in S.O.P.No.221 of 1997 before the District Judge, Vizianagaram to revoke the Succession Certificate issued in favour of respondents 1 and 2. The ground pleaded by her was that once a competent civil Court had declared the first respondent as not the legally wedded wife and the second respondent as not the son of late Satyam, the Succession Certificate cannot hold the field. Through his order, dated 19.12.2003, the learned District Judge dismissed the I.A.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri K. Subrahmanyam, submits that one of the circumstances, under which a certificate once issued can be revoked, stipulated under Section 383 of the Act is the existence of decree which, in effect, disentitles the holder of a certificate for the right thereunder. He contends that the declaratory decree in O.S.No.209 of 1996 brings about such a circumstance and., as such, there was no justification for the learned District Judge in refusing to revoke the certificate. He relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in JOGINDER PAL V. INDIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY AND OTHERS(1).

6. Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, Sri B.M.Patro, raises an objection as to the maintainability of the appeal itself. According to him, an appeal is provided for under Section 384 of the Act, against the order revoking a Succession Certificate but not the one refusing to revoke a certificate. On merits, learned counsel submits that the decree in the suit is ex parte in nature and cannot be said to be an adjudication on merits. It is his case that the petitioner has permitted the order in O.P.No.221 of 1997 to become final and it is not open to her to file an application under Section 383 of the Act. He places reliance upon the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court in MULUKH RAJ V. RAJ NARAIN(2).

7. The objection as to the maintainability of the appeal needs to be taken up at the outset. Part X of the Act prescribes the procedure for .grant of Succession Certificates and withdrawal thereof. Under Section 373 of the Act, a District Judge is empowered to issue such certificate, after following the procedure prescribed therefor, if he is satisfied. Section 383 of the Act empowers the Court to revoke the certificate under five circumstances enumerated therein. Section 384 of the Act provides for an appeal against the orders passed at various stages, under part X. It reads as under:

Appeal: (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Part, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order of a D