The court has to hold an enquiry in respect of the issuance of a succession certificate if there is any objection about entitlement of the applicant to obtain such certificate. However, the court can dispense with such an enquiry where the claim of the applicant is admitted.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 1-10-85 passed by the Second Addl. Judge to the Court of District Judge, Ratlam in Succession Case No. 4 of 1982.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to this revision petition, in short, are that the present applicant filed an application under S. 372 of the Indian Succession Act (hereinafter called the Act) for obtaining succession certificate regarding debts and securities forming part of the estate of the deceased Bhomsingh son of Ramlal Purhohit, aged about 62 years, who died on 10-7-1982 at Ratlam. The applicant claims to be real elder sister of the deceased who had no children or wife surviving him. According to the applicant the deceased had three accounts in the Banks specified in the petition, but she could not know the exact amount of the deposits in the Bank and she was also not in know of the different amounts advanced as loan to different persons. Therefore, she valued the debts and securities provisionally at Rs. 21,000/ -. According to the applicant, the non-applicants Nos. 1 and 2 were claiming as widow and daughter of deceased Bhomsingh respectively, therefore, a prayer for issuance of citation to them was also made. However, the non-applicant No. 4 also became an objector. The proceedings for issuance of the certificate is still pending before the lower Court. However, during the proceedings I. A. Nos. 7 and 8 were decided against the applicant. Hence this revision petition.

( 3 ) I. A. No. 7 has been filed on behalf of the applicant stating therein that the non-applicants Nos. 1 and 2, who are the objectors, have filed a civil suit before the Court of the District Judge wherein they have sought a declaration of being the wife and daughter of the deceased Bhomsingh and, therefore, the objectors have no locus standi to object to the grant of the succession certificate to the applicant in view of the fact that the matter pertaining to adjudication of the status of the objectors is already pending before competent Court. Therefore, their objections be dismissed in limine. I. A. No. 8 has been filed by the objectors non-applicants Nos. 1 and 2 wherein it has been prayed that the total amount for which the succession certificate has been sought in Rs. 1,93,888/- and, therefore, the applicant be directed to pay the court-fee on that amount. The lower Court disallowed I. A. No. 7 and allowed I. A. No. 8, aggrieved by which the revision is directed.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the applicant Shri Kochetta strenuously argues that in view of the fact that succession certificate cannot be granted to the objectors, their objection should not have been considered by the lower Court as they have not applied for the grant of the succession certificate themselves. Therefore, keeping in view the provisions contained in S. 373 (3) of the Act the lower Court should have granted the certificate in favour of the applicant. In support of his arguments he has cited the judgment of this Court in Bheraji v. Lal Kunwar Bai (C. M. A. No. 162 of 87 dated 8-2-1990) and the judgment in Ammini Ammal v. Lakshmi, AIR 1957 Kerala 90. On the strength of the aforesaid decision Shri Kochetta further argues that the objectors are not the applicants seeking a succession certificate. Therefore, their objections could not be considered by the lower Court, as the grounds on which the objections are based are already the subject-matter of a civil suit and the decision in the civil suit being an intricate matter requiring decisions on law and facts, the certificate should have been issued under S. 373 (3) of the Act, the applicant having the best prima facie title. His other contention is that the amount involved in the succession certificate is not yet definite, therefore, the Court could not ask the applicant to pay the court-fee on the amount which has been stated in I. A. No. 8 by the objectors.

( 5 ) ON the other hand the learned counsel for the non-applicants Shri Harbhajanka