Dr. T.N. Singh, J. -1. Respondent has been duly served. He is represented by Shri S.B. Agarwal, Advocate. However, neither on the last date nor today any steps are taken by the respondent or his counsel to defend the appeal. I have no doubt, therefore, that the respondent has lost all interest in the matter. Indeed, it is submitted that in the Court below also though the respondent filed objection, he did not enter the witness-box and indeed he did not take any other steps to pursue the objection.

2. The impugned order is dated 25.3.1991, passed in Succession Certificate Case No. 157 of 1988. The appellant as petitioner, filed an application under section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, for short 'the Act'. She claimed that she was mother of the deceased Neetabai, who, during her life time, was in the service of the State Government in the Education Department. Indeed, on record is a certificate dated 5.5.1989 of the Head Master of the school concerned, in Mungaoli, indicating that Ku. Neeta Dixit daughter of Shri Dayashankar Dixit had rendered service in the school as Upper Division Teacher between 1981 and 1985. He also certified that from her salary at the rate of Rs