1. - This appeal was filed in the year 1991 assailing the judgment dated 31.10.1991 of learned District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, in Application No.4/1979, by which application of the appellants for grant of probate/letter of administration under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, was rejected.

2. Learned counsel for appellants argued that learned District Judge has erred in law in rejecting the application for grant of probate/letter of administration on the flimsy grounds. Reasons that have been assigned are not such which create any doubt about genuineness of the will, and same are flimsy and unfounded reasons. It is argued that mere fact that objector-respondent Rukmani was real sister of testator Chatru Ram, would not be a reason to doubt about the fact that deceased testator had bequeathed the property by will in favour of the appellants, who were also looking after her for a petty long time. Other reasons that have been given by the learned District Judge that the will actually was prepared on 31.05.1967 but the death of testator Chatru Ram took place on 16.09.1978 and thus for a long period of 11 years he would have been retaining the will and yet nobody raised any suspicion about the same. It was argued that if the will, that was executed by Chatru Ram on 31.05.1967, was his last will and there was no for him to execute another will thereafter then the will would hold good. The forth reason assigned is also flimsy and unfounded that appellants were cultivating the land on sharing basis and therefore they wanted to retain the possession of the same, thus they have created this will. It is argued that even if probate is not granted, which nevertheless should have been granted, the learned District Judge erred in law in rejecting the application. The objector-respondent, despite being sister of the testator, would not have been having good relations as she left her first husband and then went in 'nata' with somebody else and that she did not care for the deceased during his life time. Now, suddenly, after his death, she appeared to claim the property, whereas the appellants were looking after him for along period he remained alive. Mere non-writing of phraseology that he bequeathed his property to the appellants out of love and affection, would not be a reason to presume that the will is doubtful. In every case it IS not expected that scribe of a will would be SO legally trained to draft the will in such a manner.

3. Shri R.K. Daga, learned counsel for respondents, supported the impugned judgment and referred to the findings recorded by learned District Judge on all those four issues, which have been assailed by learned counsel for appellants and argued that proceedings for grant of succession certificate are summary in nature and, if intricate questions of facts and law are found involved in view of Section 276, the learned District Judge was fully justified in declining to grant the same. It is argued that the remedy of the appellant would be to file a regular suit for declaration and/or injunction where these intricate issues of law can be effectively adjudicated upon by adducing evidence by the parties.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the law is well settled on the question that the proceedings for grant of succession certificate/letter of administration are summary in nature and that any order passed in these proceedings cannot treat as res-judicata against any party. Learned District Judge has given reasons why he was not persuaded to grant succession certificate/letter of administration to the appellants. This, however, would not deprive the appellants from getting their right declared in a duly constituted civil suit, and in which case they can also claim injunction. The provisions of Section 373(3) provides that if the District Judge is satisfied that there is ground for entertaining the application for grant of probate/letter of administration, he shall fix