{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 88 OF 2010 Smt.Ulka Laxmanrao Chavan and others APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr.S.D.Kulkarni, Advocate for applicants Mr.N.N.Jadhav, AGP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 7th May 2010 PER COURT: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants. Issue notice to respondents. Learned AGP accepts notice and waives service for the respondent. 2. Rule. Considering the fact that a very small point is involved in this CRA, rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the CRA is heard finally at the stage of admission itself. 3. The applicants, who are the petitioners in MARJI No. {2} 406/2008, who have applied for heirship certificate before the 5th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, have prayed for setting aside the condition No.4 imposed in the order dated 08.04.2009. By the said condition the applicants are directed to furnish surety in the like amount on the basis of two valuation certificates under section 375 of the Indian Succession Act. 4. For the just decision of the present CRA it is necessary to consider the provisions of sections 373 and 375 of the Indian Succession Act. Sections 373 and 375 of the said Act reads thus - 373. Procedure on application – (1) If the District Judge is satisfied that there is ground for entertaining the application, he shall fix a day for the hearing thereof and cause notice of the application and of the day fixed for the hearing- (a) to be served on any person to whom in the opinion of the Judge, special notice of the application should be given, and (b) to be posted on some conspicuous part of the Court-house and published in such other manner, if any, as the Judge, subject to any rules made by the High Court in this behalf, thinks fit, and upon the day fixed, or as soon thereafter as may be practicable, shall proceed to decide in a summary manner the right to the certificate. (2) When the Judge decides the right thereto to belong to the applicant, the Judge shall make an order for the grant of the certificate to him. (3) If the Judge cannot decide the right to the certificate without determining questions of law or fact {3} which seem to be too intricate and difficult for determination in a summary proceeding, he may nevertheless grant a certificate to the applicant if he appears to be the person having prima facie the best title thereto. (4) When there are more applicants than one for a certificate, and it appears to the Judge that more than one of such applicants are interested in the estate of the deceased, the Judge may, in deciding to whom the certificate is to be granted, have regard to the extent of interest and the fitness in other respects of the applicants. 375. Requisition of Security from grantee of certificate – (1) The District Judge shall in any case in which he proposes to proceed under sub section (3) or sub section (4) of the section 373, and may, in any other case, require, as a condition precedent to the granting of a certificate, that the person to whom he proposes to make the grant shall give to the Judge a bond with one more surety or sureties, or other sufficient security, for rendering an account of debts and securities received by him and for indemnity of persons who may be entitled to the whole or any part of those debts and securities. (2) The Judge may, on application made by petition and on cause shown on his satisfaction, and upon such terms as to security, or providing that the money received be paid into Court, or otherwise, as he thinks fit, assign the bond or other security to some proper person, and that person shall thereupon be entitled to sue thereon in his own name as if it had been originally given to him instead of to the Judge of the Court, and to recover, as a trustee for all persons interested, such amount as may be recoverable thereunder. {4} 5. Considering the provisions of section 375, the requisition of the security is only in the event if the application is the subject matter of sub section (3) or (4) of section 373 of the said Act. On bare perusal of the order impugned, it is clear that this heirship certificate was not contested or not even objected by anybody neither any question of law is involved therein which is difficult to decide. As the heirship certificate was granted to the applicants, as it was uncontested claim, then it does not cover under sub section (3) or (4) of section 373 and hence it is not necessary that the applicants in whose favour the heirship certificate is issued to furnish surety. In view of this, the order impugned, so far as it directs to furnish surety in the like amount requires to be quashed and set aside. 6. Accordingly, the CRA is allowed. Clause (4) of the impugned order dated 08.04.2009 passed by 5th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Aurangabad is hereby quashed and set aside. 7. Rule is thus made absolute on the terms indicated above with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/cra88-10