The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of probate or letters of administration for claims based on a will, the power of the court to issue succession certificates, and the need for adequate security under Section 375(1) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

Aditya Nath Mittal, J.

Heard learned counsel for both the parties' and perused the record.

2. This civil revision has been filed with the prayer to set aside the order passed by the appellate court, whereby the order passed by the Trial Court issuing succession certificate with respect to two SDTRs was set aside.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the revisionists had filed the application for succession regarding the estate of their father (late) Sri Baij Nath alleging that they are the daughters of (late) Baij Nath. The respondents had contested the said application on the ground that (late) Baij Nath was their real brother, who had executed a Will in their favour. Therefore, the revisionists were not entitled to the succession certificate.

4. After recording the evidence of both the parties, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that the revisionists-applicants are the daughters of (late) Baij Nath and the said Will as well as the edition of name of Ram Adhar creates doubt. The learned trial court held that the revisionists were best titled to the estate of (late) Baij Nath. Therefore, the application was allowed and the objections were rejected by judgement and order dated 01.12.2004.

5. Being aggrieved, the respondents have challenged the order dated 01.12.2004 in Misc. Appeal No.186 of 2004 and the appellate court held that the revisionists are entitled to the sum of Rs.39,255.56, which was deposited in the State Bank while the order regarding two SDTRs of Rs.75,000/- each was set aside. Not being satisfied, the revisionists are before this Court.

6. With this backdrop, learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that in the summary proceedings, the learned court below could not entered into the intricate questions of fact or law but in view of the provisions of Section 373 (3) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), the court below was competent to issue Succession Certificates. It has also been submitted that at the most, the security could have taken in view of the provisions of Section 375 of the Act. Therefore, the order passed by the appellate court is perverse and is liable to be set aside.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that one of the respondents Ram Adhar is the joint holder of said SDTRs and is also entitled for those SDTRs on the basis of Will executed by (late) Baij Nath. It has also been submitted that because Ram Adhar was the joint owner of those SDTRs, therefore, the said SDTRs were payable to either or survivor. Thus, Ram Adhar is entitled for the said amount in view of the endorsement on the SDTRs as well as on the basis of Will.

8. The proceedings under Part-X of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 are summary in nature and in view of the provisions of Section 387 of the Act, the same could be challenged in any suit or in any other proceedings between the same parties. It is also not disputed that by way of succession certificate, the right to collect is given and not the right to entitlement.

9. The issuance of succession certificate was contested hotly by Ram Adhar, before the court below. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faizabad has considered all the evidence on record and after appreciating the evidence on record, which includes the statement of the Bank Manager also, has come to the conclusion that the word 'self' has been interpolated by words 'former or survivor'. The Register of the Bank was also summoned in which, it was found that both the SDTRs were issued in the sole name of Baij Nath and the name of Ram Adhar has been added subsequently by another pen and another ink. It has also been observed that (late) Baij Nath was having two brothers - Ram Kumar and Ram Adhar but only Ram Adhar is trying his level best to get the money of said SDTRs. The learned court below has observed that it cannot be decided in these proceedings whether the name of Ram Adhar has been entered rightly or wro