1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7149 OF 2009 Manjusha Jyotikumar Katkar & Ors. .. Petitioners versus Vinita Pandharinath Katkar .. Respondent Mr.Shrishail Sakhare for the petitioners. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 24th September 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The petitioners are the applicants in an application made for grant of succession certificate under section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The 1st petitioner is the widow of deceased Jyotikumar and 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the minor children of the said Jyotikumar. The respondent is the mother of deceased Jyotikumar. The succession certificate was prayed for in respect of debts and securities payable to the said Jyotikumar. The application for grant of succession certificate was partly allowed by holding that the applicants are entitled to receive the debts and securities standing in the name of Jyotikumar to the extent of the 3/4th share and the respondent-mother was entitled to receive 1/4th share. 2. An appeal was preferred by the petitioners for challenging the said order. The appeal was preferred alongwith application for condonation of delay. An application for stay of the impugned order was made. By judgment and order 2 dated 23rd February 2009, the learned District Judge has rejected the application for stay. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that as the appeal is pending, the order of stay should have followed. He submitted that in any case, the respondent ought to have been directed to furnish security. 3. I have considered the submissions. The debts and securities of deceased Jyotikumar in respect of which succession certificate was claimed are in the nature of provident fund, gratuity, pension etc payable to said Jyotikumar. Admittedly, the respondent is the mother of deceased Jyotikumar. Hence, the respondent is class I heir of deceased Jyotikumar alongwith the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Therefore, the trial Court has held that the respondent has a share equal to the shares of the petitioners which is 1/4th share each. 4. Considering this factual and legal position, the Appellate Court was justified in rejecting the prayer for stay. It is obvious that if any amount is received by the respondent on the basis of the order of the trial Court, the payment of the said amount to the respondent will be subject to final outcome of the appeal. Subject to what is observed above, no case for interference is made out. Writ petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA,J)