(1.) These two revision petitions give rise to a ccmmon question of law as to the applicability of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code with regard to the grant of a succession certificate. The revisions arise in the following circumstances. One Motilal Jhawar died leaving certain securities. His four daughters, namely, Kamala bai, BhavariBai, Krishna Bai and Karuna Bai filed O. P. No. 496/1977 on the file of the Addl. Chief judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for the grant of succesion certificate with regard to the securities lying to the credit of the deceased in the Central Bank of India and the Central Bank of India Staff Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. The revision petitioner in C. R. P. No. 4582/1978, who is the son of Kamala Bai, claiming to be the adopted son of Motilal Jhawar, filed a petition under Or. 1, Rule 10, C. P. C. for being impleaded as a party to the said proceeding, claiming himself to be entitled to the securities standing in the name of the deceased. That petition was opposed by the original petitioners inter alia on the ground that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable to succession proceedings and therefore he cannot be impleaded. The learned Addl. Judge following a ruling of this Court reported in K.V.R. Narasimha Rao vs. K. Vimalavati held that the provisions of Civil Procedure Code do not apply to succession proceedings and therefore dismissed the petition on the ground that it is not maintainable. Hence C. R. P. Nc. 4582/1978.
(2.) While so, his mother Kamala Bai, one of the original petitioners sought to be transposed as a respondent to contest the petition on the ground that there are certain misunderstandings and that she was wrongly impleaded along with the petitioners seeking the grant of a succession certificate. That petition was also opposed by the other daughters of Motilal Jhawar, seeking the succession certificate on the ground that she cannot be transposed and permitted to be arrayed as a respondent to contest the grant of succession certificate, as the provisions of Or. 1, Rule 10, C. P. C, are not at all applicable to these proceedings. This contention found favour with the learned Addl. Chief Judge and on that ground alone he dismissed the petition for transposition. Hence C. R. P. No. 4676/1978.
(3.) The short point for consideration whether the provisions of Or. 1, Rule 10, C. P. C. are applicable to proceeding under the Indian Succession Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that though the proceedings with regard to the grant of successsion certificate are summary in nature, no procedure is prescribed under the Act with regard to the grant of succession certificate and therefore, the provisions of Civil Procedure Code as far as possible should be made applicable and the provisions of Or. 1, Rule 10, C. P. C. can be made applicable. In order to appreciate the contentions, it is necessary to read certain provisions of the SUCCESSION ACT, 1925. The relevant provisions are Sections 372, 383, 387 and 388 of the Act which read as follows: '372. Application for certificate;(1) Application for such a certificate shall be made to the District Judge by a petition signed and certified by or on behalf of the applicant in the manner prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the signing and verification of a plaint by or on behalf of a plaintiff, and setting forth the following particulars namely;