V.K. Gupta, Chief Justice (Oral).: What is under challenge in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is the impugned order dated 21st May, 2004 passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur in proceedings under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of this petition may be stated as under:-

1. One Neeraj Kumar, who was serving in the Army, had died intestate and consequent upon his death his mother Smt. Kanta Devi filed a petition under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of a succession certificate. In this petition the widow of deceased Neeraj Kumar was the only contesting respondent, in effect and substance, because of other two respondents were the "General Public" and "Zila Sainik Board Hamirpur". During the pendency of the aforesaid petition before the learned District Judge, Hamirpur the sole petitioner Smt. Kanta Devi, the mother of deceased, Neeraj Kumar died. On 21st May, 2004 when the petition was fixed for consideration before the learned District Judge, the factum of the death of the sole petitioner was brought to the notice of the learned District Judge. Noticing the said fact of the death of sole petitioner Smt. Kanta Devi the learned District Judge dismissed the petition for grant of succession certificate filed by Smt. Kanta Devi on the ground that since sole petitioner had died and since Smt. Soma Devi, respondent was the sole surviving Class I heir to the estate of deceased Neeraj Kumar, the application no longer survived. For ready reference the text of the impugned order is reproduced hereunder which reads thus:- "According to both the learned counsel, petitioner Kanta Devi has died. The petition is for Succession Certificate qua some amount due to son of the petitioner. Petitioner having mother of deceased Neeraj Kumar and respondent No.2 Soma Devi being wife were both 1st Class heirs. Mother 1st Class heir has died. As such leaving behind the widow a sole surviving 1st Class heir. Hence, this application due to the death of petitioner does not survive. The same is dismissed. Be consigned to the Record Room." 2.Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is bad in law because Smt. Kanta Devi, sole petitioner, who was mother of the deceased Neeraj Kumar, had left behind her legal heirs and legal representatives who were to succeed to her estate and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned District Judge to have afforded an opportunity to the legal representatives of deceased Kanta Devi (sole petitioner) to be brought on record in her place and to maintain and prosecute the petition filed by her under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for the grant of a Succession Certificate. I find sufficient merit in this contention of Mr. Ashok Sharma.

3. The parties agree and it is undoubtedly true that the parties being Hindus, in the matter of succession were governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Section 8 of this Act reads thus:- "8. General rules of succession in the case of males:- The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter;- (a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class I of the Schedule; (b) secondly, if there is no heir of class I, then upon the heirs, being relatives specified in class II of the Schedule; (c) thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the two classes, then upon the agnates of the deceased; and (d) lastly, if there is no agnate, then upon the cognates of the deceased."

4. Insofar as the order of succession among the heirs in the Schedule to 1956 Act is concerned, Section 9 suggests that among the heirs specified in the Schedule those in Class I shall take simultaneously and to the exclusion of all other heirs and so forth. Section 9 of the 1956 Act may be reproduced hereunder: "9. Order of succession among heirs in the Schedule:- Among the he