The grant of a succession certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 does not bar a subsequent suit for declaration of title to the deceased's estate, as the proceedings under Section 372 are summary in nature and the decision therein does not preclude the parties from litigating the same issue in a regular suit.

R.L.Anand, J.

1. Joginder Pal @ Joginder Nath son of late Panna Lal Diwan, has filed the present appeal and it has been directed against the judgment dated 5.4.1997, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, who accepted the appeal of the Indian Red Cross Society, Gurdaspur (hereinafter referred to the Society) and set aside the order dated 18.1.1997, passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Divn., Gurdaspur, who rejected the plaint of the Society under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC, by holding that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action.

2. Some facts can be noted in the following manner:-

.

3 This is a second bout of litigation. At the first instance, the Society filed a petition under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against general public and Joginder Pal and claimed the succession certificate with regard to the estate of Raj Mohni Rulia Ram d/o. Mohan Lal, who died on 27.4.1998 at Gurdaspur and according to the Society, the deceased executed a valid will dated 2.4.1985 in its favour vide which the deceased be-queathed her liquid assets along with immovable property in favour of the Society. Notice of the petition was given to the respondent and the general public. Joginder Pal contested that petition with a reply that Raj Mohni Rulia Ram had cancelled the will executed in favour of the Society. Rather, she executed another valid will dated 12.6.1987 in favour of the appellant, who happens to be the real cousin (brother of the deceased), The mother of Raj Mohni; namely, Leela Wanti and Panna Lai, father of the appellant were real brother and sister. Vide the said will dated 12.6.1987, the deceased bequeathed her entire property in his favour. She was in a sound disposing mind. On the basis of the said will, he is entitled to receive the liquid assets as well as the other estate of the deceased. Two issues were framed by the court: -

1. Whether Miss Raj Mohni executed a valid will dated 2.4.1985 in favour of the Red Cross Society-applicant as alleged? OPA

2. Whether Miss Raj Mohni executed a valid will in favour of Joginder Pal, respondent No.2 on 12.6.1987 as alleged? OPR

4. The parties led oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their case and, ultimately, vide order dated 30.3.1993, it was observed by the trial Court that Joginder Pal was entitled to receive the liquid assets of the deceased Raj Mohni as her only legal heir oh the basis of the Will executed in her favour by deceased Raj Mohni during her life time in a sound disposing mind. The said Will dated 12.6.1987 is Ex.R-1 of the record. Respondent No.2 is directed to file the security in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- by filing a personal bond and surety bond. The application under Section 372 of the Act filed by the Society was disposed of. Meaning thereby that the Will dated 2.4.1985 propounded by the Society was not approved. This order was challenged upto the High Court By the society but without any success. The second round of litigation started when the society filed a suit for declaration to the effect that it is the lawful owner and in possession of the estate of the deceased and is also entitled to the asserts; movable and immovable, of the deceased who died on 24.7.1998 on the basis of the will dated 2.3.1985, executed by Raj Mohni in its favour and with consequential relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, Joginder Pal and Ors. from interfering in the possession of the Society which had the control and the management over the estate of the deceased. During the pendency of the said suit, Joginder Pal, appellant, filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 r/w Section 151, CPC, for rejection of the plaint and it was averred that all the previous litigations and judgments under the same title and between the same parties had been finally disposed of by the competent Court upto the Honble High Court and that the plaintiff-society has no locus standi to file the suit. It was al