The main legal point established in the judgment is that there is no provision to convert the proceedings for a succession certificate into a suit, and the court should make a summary enquiry about the right to the certificate.

1. The respondent filed a petition, under S.371 and 372 of the Indian Succession Act, praying for the issue of a succession certificate in respect of the assets of his deceased brother Parameswaran Pillai on the ground that he was the only legal representative of the deceased. The revision petitioner, who is the son of a sister of the deceased, filed a caveat and also filed I.A. No. 735 of 1984 in which he contended that the respondent is not the sole legal representative and also praying that major portion of the amount for which the succession certificate is sought for belongs to the tarwad. Consequently, he claimed that the proceedings have become contentious in nature and therefore the proceedings are to be converted into a suit. The respondent opposed that application. The lower court dismissed LA. No. 735 of 1984. This CRP. is directed against the said order.

2. R.4 of the Rules under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 made by the High Court of Kerala provides that non-contentious proceedings shall include proceedings for obtaining probate and letters of administration where there is no contest as to the right there to. R.22 provides for filing a caveat and as per R.23, where a caveat is entered after an application has been made for grant of probate or letters of administration, the affidavit in support there of shall state the right and interest of the caveator, and the ground of objections to the application. Under R.26, when the caveat is thus filed the proceedings shall be ordered to be numbered as a suit in which the petitioner for probate or letters of administration shall be the plaintiff and the caveator shall be the defendant. The procedure in such suit shall be according to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, these rules are not applicable to proceedings for succession certificate, and as such there is no provision to convert such proceedings as suits. Ss 370 to 373 of the Indian Succession Act do not provide for converting an application for succession certificate into a suit. Under S.373, the provision is to decide the application in a summary manner and the question to be decided is the right to the succession certificate. Sub-sections (3) and (4) of S.373 reads:

"(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 a 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 judge may, in deciding to whom the certificate is to be granted, have regard to the extent, of interest and the fitness in other respects of the applicants."

3. Under these circumstances, there is no provision for Converting the proceedings into a suit and as such the dismissal of the petition is proper and correct.

4. However, the revision petitioner is more aggrieved with the following observation of the lower court:

"Their contention is that the source for the money which is under deposit comes from a property which was held by the Tharvad of which the petitioner and the respondents were members. This is a matter which requires enquiry and declaration in a properly instituted suit and it is not a matter for enquiry in a summary proceeding like the present case. Therefore, prima facie the respondents have no right to claim anything on the amount under deposit."

According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the lower court ought to have conducted some kind of an enquiry before entering a prima facie finding regarding the claim set up by the revision petitioner. In support of this contention, learned counsel placed before me the following authorities: Dharmaya Sangappa v. Sayana Malapa (ILR. 21 Bombay 53). In that ca