JUDGMENT - S.B. MHASE, J.:---This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Beed on 3-1-1989 below Exhibit 22 by which the respondents have requested the trial Court to allow the amendment to the objection which they have filed in Misc. Application No. 82 of 1985.

2. Misc. Application No. 82 of 1985 has been filed by the revision petitioners under section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to obtain succession certificate after the death of Tukaram Janu Pakhare who expired on 17-9-1983. After the notice was issued by the Civil Court the respondents have filed objection on 23-10-1985 and have contended that the petitioner Deubai is not legally wedded wife of the deceased Tukaram, but objector No. 1 Muktabai is legally wedded wife of deceased Tukaram. Thereafter in para No. 5, the genealogy is given. Said genealogy has shown Deubai as second wife and it is further shown that Vinod petitioner No. 2 and Manoj alias Shrikant, petitioner No. 3 are the sons of Tukaram. It requires to be stated at this stage only that even though the status of Deubai has been challenged in the said objection petition, still the status of Vinod and Manoj as sons of Tukaram have not been objected. However, it is not known from the said objection in what manner the objector respondents claimed that Deubai is not legally wedded wife because the marriage can become illegal on several counts. Thereafter the respondents filed an application whereby they requested to allow the amendment whereby they proposed the amendment of the following nature:

"The applicant Deubai is the wife of one Keshavrao s/o Maruti Sonawane, r/o Village Khumba (Limba), Taluka Patoda. Their marriage having taken place in or about the year 1969 the marital relation between the applicant No. 1 and the said Keshavrao still subsists in law. The applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are not born to applicant No. 1 from the said deceased Tukaram.

That the applicant No. 1 Deubai has to value for truth, morality and honesty. She can stoop to any low extent to acquire properties of others or for monetary gains. Applicant Nos. 1 to 3 are neither legal heirs of deceased Tukaram nor concerned whatsoever with him i.e. deceased Tukaram."

These were the paragraphs which were proposed to be included by way of para Nos. 1 and 7(h) and therefore, the amendment application was submitted. The trial Court after having considered rival contentions has allowed the application on payment of the cost of Rs. 100/-. The said order is under challenge in this petition.

3. The learned Counsel Shri D.B. Yeotekar, appearing for the petitioners submitted that in view of the provisions of section 373 of the Indian Succession Act, the Court cannot follow any other procedure other than the procedure provided in the said section. The said section 373 lays down that after the petition is entertained by the Court, the said Court shall fix a day for the hearing thereof and cause notice of the application and of the day fixed for the hearing.

(a) to be served on any person to whom, in the opinion of the Judge, special notice of the application should be given, and

(b) to be posted on some conspicuous part of the Court-house and published in such other manner, if any, as the Judge, subject to any rules made by the High Court in this behalf, thinks fit,

(2) When the Judge decides the right thereto to belong to the applicant, the Judge shall make an order for the grant of the certificate to him.

(3) If the Judge cannot decide the right to the certificate without determining questions of law or fact which seem to be too intricate and difficult for determination in any summary proceeding, he may nevertheless grant a certificate to the applicant if he appears to be the person having prima facie the best title thereto.

(4) When there are more applicants than one for a certificate, and it appears to the Judge that more than one of such applicants are interested in the estate of the deceased, the J

Click Here to Read the rest of this document