Jurisdiction of Civil Court to pass such order negatived.

ORDER :- One Balasundaram Chettiar who is now no more, had a deposit with the A.B.T. (P.) Ltd., Polachi. On the date of his death, there were amounts still in deposit with that concern. Subsequently, Lakshmiammal, the petitioner in this revision, filed a petition for the issue of a succession certificate in the District Munsif's Court, Coimbatore. An order was passed in that petition on 5-4-1966 enabling her to obtain an aggregate sum of Rs. 16,461-45, from the A B T (P) Ltd. It may be observed that in the said O.P., the petitioner was described as the wife of the late Balasundaram Chettiar. Subsequently, after nearly 11 years, on 26-5-1977, respondents 1 to 9 filed an application before the learned District Munsif invoking the inherent powers of the court and praying for an order directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 4184-98 out of the amount which had been received by her from A B T (P) Ltd., on the strength of the succession certificate issued in her favour by the court. The respondents claimed in their application that the petitioner Lakshmiammal could claim no interest on the amounts lying in deposit to the credit of the deceased Balasundaram Chettiar and that she had obtained a succession certificate in respect thereof by abusing the process of court. On notice of this application, the petitioner denied all the allegations levelled against her. She also submitted that the application for directing her to redeposit the amount obtained by her from ABT (P) Ltd. did not lie.

2. The learned District Munsif overruled the contentions of the petitioner and directed her to deposit the amount of Rs. 4184-98 into court. The learned District Munsif, in the course of his order, also upheld the maintainability of the application filed by the respondents.

3. The petitioner questions the jurisdiction of the learned District Munsif to call upon her to redeposit the amount which she had obtained from A B T (P) Ltd. on the strength of the succession certificate earlier issued to her. Learned counsel for the petitioner put her point on the basis that when once a succession certificate had been granted, the court granting the said certificate becomes functus officio.

4. I do not think this way of describing the court's want of jurisdiction is a correct one. The Indian Succession Act 1925 makes a omprehensive provision for the issue of succession certificates under Part X of that Act. It provides for an elaborate procedure for the application, and for the hearing and the making of an order for the issue of a succession certificate Vide Ss.372, 373 and 374 of the Act. S.383 provides for a revocation of the succession certificate by the court which grants it under certain circumstances. This shows that in a proper sense it cannot be held that on the issue of a succession certificate the court concerned becomes functus officio.

5. This is not, however, to say the application which was filed by the respondents in this case before the court below could be maintained. It may be observed that in that application the respondents were not minded to obtain a revocation of the succession certificate already granted; nor was any relief, as such, asked for in respect of anything touching the succession certificate. On the contrary, the relief claimed by the respondents was for a direction to the petitioner that she should deposit an amount of debt owing to the deceased which she was empowered to collect from the deceased's debtors. In my view, so long as the succession certificate remained intact and had not been revoked or otherwise set aside, the succession certificate and anything done pursuant thereto could not be unsettled. The respondents purported to file their application as a proceeding in continuation of the original petition filed by the petitioner for the issue of a succession certificate. But there is nothing in the Succession Act under which third parties and strangers to the proceedings could invoke the powers of the Court, not in r