ORDER

The petitioners are aggrieved by rejection of their application filed under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 [for short, 'the Succession Act'] read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure [CPC] in P & SC No.14/2006 on the file of the VI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru [for short, 'the District Court']. The petitioners and the respondents together have presented the common petition in P & SC No.14/2006 under Section 372 of the Succession Act listing certain movable and immovable properties in the schedule appended to the petition contending that they have succeeded to the aforesaid properties on the demise of Sri.K.S.Subbaramaiah. The civil Court has accepted this petition granting Succession Certificate by its order dated 13.06.2006.

2. The petitioners have filed a review petition under Order XLVII Rules 1 and 2 of CPC in Miscellaneous Application No.814/2006 and with the disposal of such petition by order dated 16.09.2009, the present application is filed. Sri.K.Seetharamaiah and Smt.Venkamma are the parents of [1] Sri.K.S.Subbaramaiah [the deceased], [2] Sri.K.S.Srinivasa Murthy [the respondents are his legal heirs] and [3] the petitioners. Sri.K.S.Subbaramaiah, whose wife predeceased him, has died without any issues, and the parties have filed petition in P & SC No.14/2006 asserting that they, as his legal heirs, will be entitled to Succession Certificate for the immovable and movable properties mentioned in the petition.

3. However, the petitioners have filed the review petition contending that because Sri.Sri.K.S.Srinivasa Murthy has predeceased Sri.K.S.Subbramaiah, only they would be Class-II (ii) legal heirs of Sri K.S.Subbramaiah, and in that event only they would be entitled to his entire estate. They have joined the respondents in filing the common petition in P & SC No.14/2006 because of a mistake, and upon realizing this mistake, they have filed the review petition and the subsequent application as aforesaid.

4. The civil Court has rejected the subsequent application by the impugned order dated 19.11.2015 opining that the grounds urged by the petitioners would not come under any one of the clauses as contemplated under Section 383 of the Succession Act. It is now submitted in unison that the second petitioner has died, and that though she is represented by her legal representatives, none of them are interested in prosecuting the proceedings. In fact, a memo is filed to place on record the fact of demise of the second respondent.

5. Sri S.Vivekananda and Sri.D.G.Chinnappa Gowda, the learned counsels for the parties, submit that:

[i] the parties have ultimately agreed to workout their respective rights to the immovable properties mentioned in the schedule to the petition in P & SC No.14/2006, in a properly instituted suit because of the settled law that the succession certificates could only be in respect of movable properties/assets, and [ii] the first petitioner has agreed to pay to the respondents [the legal heirs of Sri.K.S.Srinivasa Murthy] 1/3rd of the amount in deposit as per the details furnished, including the amounts that are withdrawn by the petitioners.

In fact, both Sri S.Vivekananda and Sri.D.G.Chinnappa Gowda submit that the first petitioner and the respondents are willing to open the locker that is mentioned in Schedule IV in P & SC No.14/2006 and distribute the valuables therein inter se the petitioners and the respondents with the respondents taking 1/3rd thereof.

6. This Court must accept both the submissions as regards the parties working out their rights in the immovable properties and sharing the movables/ valuables. It is because it is trite that Succession Certificates cannot be issued for immovable properties and because the first petitioner is taking upon herself to settle the claim of the respondents in the movables/assets in terms of the Succession Certificate that is granted. However, the agreement as regards sharing the movables/ valuables cannot in