Point of Law: Section 373 merely lays down that Court is required to be satisfied that there is ground for entertaining application namely by a person who desires to make a claim.

ORDER :

1. This civil revision petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC by the respondents in P & SC No.33/2009 assailing the judgment in Misc. Appeal No.3/201 passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Gulbarga dated 16.09.2011 and the order dated 31.01.2011 in P & SC No.33/2009 by the III Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Gubarga, whereby Succession Certificate was granted to the petitioners therein.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts are as below :

(i) The petitioners, who are the respondents herein, are the wife and son of the deceased Nagappa. Respondents, who are the revisions petitioners herein are father and mother of said Nagappa. The said Nagappa was working as SDA at Sangameshwar Hospital. Petitioners had separated from respondents and they were residing in separate house along with the said Nagappa. Nagappa expired on 07.11.2008 and the petitioners being Class-I heirs are entitled to receive the entire service benefits of the deceased Nagappa. As such they approached the employers of Nagappa. The employers demanded a Succession Certificate and as such the P & SC No.33/2009 came to be filed.

(ii) On issuance of notice to the respondents and also on publishing of citations in the newspaper, except the respondents none else had appeared before the Court. Respondents/revision petitioners thereby filed their objections admitting the relationship with petitioners, but they contended that the service benefits of the deceased is not to the extent of Rs.2,20,000/- as mentioned in the petition, but it was Rs.3,86,349/-. They also contended that they are the Class-I heirs of the deceased and as such they also have a right over the service benefits of the deceased Nagappa.

(iii) After hearing both the sides, on perusal of the material on record, the learned trial Judge by taking note of the decision in the case of Shri Banarsi Dass vs. Teeku Datta, (2005) 4 SCC 449 has held that the petitioners are entitled for grant of the Succession Certificate and they only represent the hands, in which, the service benefits are to be received from the employer of Nagappa and allowed the petition. In no way learned Judge had stated that respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not have any right in the service benefits of the deceased Nagappa.

(iv) Aggrieved by the said order, respondents approached the District Court in Misc. Appeal No.3/2011, contending that they being the father and mother of the deceased Nagappa they too are the Class-I heirs of deceased Nagappa, as such, the trial Court ought not to have issued Succession Certificate only to the petitioners. The first appellate Court held that the contention of the revision petitioners is not sustainable, since the Court has no power to go into the substantial and intricated question of facts and law while granting Succession Certificate in the light of the decision in the case of Shri Banarsi Dass vs. Teeku Datta and that the respondents are at liberty to approach the appropriate Court of law for determination of their grievance and for their share in the death benefits of deceased Nagappa. With such observations, the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, respondents have approached this Court in this revision petition.

4. It is contended that, though an enquiry under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act is summery enquiry, it does not prevent Courts from deciding who amongst the parties to the lis would be entitled to the Succession Certificate. When the Courts below were unanimous in saying that respondents are also the Class-I heirs to conclusion, ought to be that the Succession Certificate is required to be issued in the joint names, leaving it to the parties to decide their actual percentage of shares from the Civil Court. It is contended that excluding a person and granting to some others and calling upon the excluded litigants to have their rights to decide in the Courts wo