R.S. Chauhan, J.— These three appeals raise a common legal issue, thus, they are being decided by this common judgment.

2. The legal issue, which arises for consideration of this Court, is whether a succession certificate can be issued by the District Judge under Section 370 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (‘the Act’, for short) for the purpose of transfer of saw mill licence granted under the Rajasthan Forest Produce (Establishment and Regulation of Saw Mills) Rules 1983 (‘the Rules’, for short), or not?

3. The facts are being taken from the case of Iqbal Singh v. Deputy Forest Conservator & Ors. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1833/2012). The appellant, Iqbal Singh, is aggrieved by the order dated 14.8.2012 (in the other two appeals also the appellants are aggrieved by order dated 14.8.2012) passed by Additional District Judge, Sri Karanpur, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the application filed by the appellant for grant of succession certificate under the Act.

4. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.2.1998 the appellant’s father, Gurcharan Singh, was granted a licence for running a saw mill by the Deputy Forest Conservator, Sri Ganganagar. The said licence was renewed periodically. Last time the licence was renewed was on 12.1.2011. The licence was renewed till further orders. Appellant’s father, Shri Gurcharan Singh, expired on 28.12.2001 leaving behind the appellant, Iqbal Singh, and other legal representatives, namely respondent Nos. 3 to 6. The respondent Nos. 3 to 6 surrendered their rights with regard to the licence in favour of the appellant. On 25.5.2010, the appellant filed an application before the Deputy Forest Conservator, Sri Ganganagar, and prayed that on account of his father’s death, his name should be substituted in the licence. However, by letter dated 25.6.2010, the appellant was directed to submit a succession certificate issued by the District Judge in case he wanted the licence to be renewed/transferred in his name. Therefore, on 12.8.2010, the appellant submitted an application before the learned Judge for grant of the succession certificate. However, by order dated 14.8.2012, the learned Judge has dismissed the said application. Hence, this appeal before this Court.

5. Mr. Rajeev Purohit, the learned counsel for the appellants, has raised the following contentions before this Court: firstly, the appellants are solely dependent on the saw mill for their livlihood. After the death of their father/husband, they have been operating their saw mill for a number of years. Secondly, according to order dated 11.2.2011 issued by the Chief Conservator of Forest, Rajasthan, before a licence can be transferred in the name of a legal representative, he/she is required to submit a succession certificate issued by the District Court. Thirdly, relying on the case of Smt. Budhwant Kaur v. Rawat Singh & Ors., AIR 1988 Raj. 1, the learned counsel has contended that a mining lease is covered under Section 370 of the Act. Therefore, a succession certificate can be issued for a mining lease. Thus, similarly, a succession certificate can be issued for the transferof a saw mill. Lastly, the learned Judge has erred in concluding that a licence of a saw mill is not included in the definition of word “security” as given in Section 370(2) of the Act.

6. Heard the learned counsel, and perused the impugned order.

7. Part X of the Act deals with the procedure for the issuance and the ambit and scope of the succession certificate. Sections 370, 372, 374, 376 and 377 are the relevant provisions in the present case.

Section 370 is as under:

370. Restriction on grant of certificates under this Part—(1) A succession certificate (hereinafter in this Part referred to as a certificate) shall not be granted under this Part with respect to any debt or security to which a right is required by Section 212 or section 213 to be established by letters of administration or probate: Provided that nothing contained in this sec