S. N. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner challenged the order dated 25-4-1984, Annexure-2 to the write petition allowing appeal and setting aside the order dated 2-2-1982 refusing to revoke succession certificate.

( 2 ) THE petitioners applied for succession certificate which was registered as Misc. Case No. 8 of 1979 under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act on 20-2-1979 before the Civil Judge, Mainpuri in respect of amount of Rs. 16. 750/- deposited in the Post Office and State Bank of India by Rati Ram Sharma. Petitioners who are nephews of Rati Ram Sharma filed application on the- ground Inter alia that they are only heirs of Rati Ram Sharma entitles to succession certificate, that there is no Will executed by him in favour of any other person. The application was allowed and the succession certificate was issued by Civil Judge on 17-7-1979.

( 3 ) OPPOSITE party No. 2 Shyam Sunder filed an application under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act on 25-7-1979 on the ground inter-alia that the deceased executed a Will on 28-12-1976, petitioners had full knowledge about the fact that proceedings were going on the basis of Will for mutation in revenue record before Tehsildar, they were party to the said proceedings and represented through Uma Shanker, Advocate on 2-1-1978, in spite of this they had obtained succession certificate by concealment of the fact. The Civil Judge, Mainpuri by order dated 2-2-1982 rejected the said application.

( 4 ) APPEAL filed by opposite party No. 2 was allowed. The order dated 2-2-1982 was set aside, and succession certificate dated 7-2-1979 was revoked.

( 5 ) HEARD Sri B. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri T. P. Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that opposite party No. 2 did not obtain any probate under Section 213 of Indian succession Act and is not entitled to file application for revocation. He further urged that the finding recorded by the Trial Court was not set aside and the order of appellate authority reversing decree, is vitiated in law.

( 7 ) SRI T. P. Mishra, learned Counsel for the opposite party, opposed the argument made by learned counsel for the petitioners and said that the order passed by appellate Court was rightly passed in accordance with law.

( 8 ) THE question for consideration before this Court is the scope of the proceedings of revocation of certificate under Section 383 Indian Succession Act. Section 383 of Indian Succession Act is quoted below:-"383. Revocation of certificate. A certificate granted under this Part may be revoked for any of the following causes, namely:- (a) that the procedings to obtain the certificate were defective in sub-stance; (b) that the certificate was obtained fraudulently by the makiing of a false suggestion, or by the concealment from the Court of something material to the cases; (c) that the certificate was obtained by means of an untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant thereof, though such allegation was made in ignorance or inadvertently; (d) that the certificate has become useless and inoperative through circumstnce; (e) that a decree or order made by a competent Court in a suit or other proceeding with respect to effects comprising debts or securities specified in the certificate renders it proper that the certificate should be revoked. "section 383 (b) and (c) of the Indian Succession Act makes it clear that if certificate was obtained by concealment of any fact or on the basis of untrue allegation, certificate could be revoked.

( 9 ) IN the present case a proceeding before the Revenue Court was pending between the parties on the basis of Will relied on by opposite party at the time petitioners applied for succession certificate. In the said proceeding before revenue Court opposite party No. 2 had already filed application for mutation on the basis of Will and contested the claim of the petitioners that they are n

Click Here to Read the rest of this document