IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 317 OF 2007 VIJAY DONDIRAM KONDKE & ORS. ..APPLICANTS V/S TEJESWINI SHIVA & ANR. ..RESPONDENTS MR. YATIN R. SHAH, ADVOCATE, FOR THE APPLICANTS. MR. P.B. SHAH, ADVOCATE, APPEARING FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.2. CORAM: J.H. BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H. BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 5TH JUNE, 2008. DATE : 5TH JUNE, 2008. DATE : 5TH JUNE, 2008. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Respondent No. 2. None for the Respondent No.1. 2. Respondent No. 1 filed an application for letter of administration in respect of the property left behind by one Dada Kondke claiming to be daughter of the deceased Dada Kondke. Respondent No. 2 is the sister of the deceased and she has filed a proceeding for probate of will allegedly executed in her favour. According to her the Respondent No. 1, who is the Applicant before the trial court is not a daughter of the deceased. Thus the application filed by the respondent no. 1 is being contested by the Respondent No. 2. The present : 2 : applicants claim to be the sons and daughers of the brothers of the deceased. They filed in all 3 applications before the trial court for being impleaded as Applicant in Misc. Application No. 429 of 2001 filed by the Respondent No. 1 for the purpose of letters of administration. That application for impleading the applicants as party was rejected by the trial court. That order is challenged in the present Revision Application. 3. As per the provisions of section 9 of the Hindu Succession Act, among heirs specified in the Schedule, those in the Class I shall take to the exclusion of all other heirs and those in First Entry in Class II shall be preferred to those in the 2nd Entry and those in 2nd entry shall be preferred to those in 3rd entry and so on. 4. It appears that the real dispute is between the Respondent No. 1, who claims to be the daughter of the deceased and Respondent No. 2 who is admittedly the sister of the deceased. The Respondent No. 2 has filed a probate proceeding seeking probate of the will of the deceased while the Respondent No. 1 has filed Misc. Application No. 429 of 2001 for letter of administration claiming that she is the daughter of the : 3 : deceased and that the deceased had died intestate. There is a dispute about the relationship of respondent no. 1 with the deceased while there is no dispute that respondent no. 2 is sister of the deceased. The daughter is Class I heir as per the Schedule to Hindu Succession Act. If the Respondent No. 1 proves that she is the daughter and the deceased had died intestate then she would be the only legal heir excluding sister and the brother’s children. The Respondent No. 2 and the Applicants being the heirs of class II, the Respondent No. 2, who, being sister, falls in entry No. 2, will exclude the applicants, who are the heirs in entry No.4. In view of this legal position the present applicants have no legal right in the matter. They could claim to be the successors or heirs of the deceased only in the absence of the Respondent No. 1 as well as respondent no.2 There was no reason for impleading the present applicant in the Misc. Application filed by the respondent No. 1. In view of the legal position and the facts, I find no fault in the impugned order. 5. In the result, the Revision Application stands dismissed. (J. H. BHATIA, J) (J. H. BHATIA, J) (J. H. BHATIA, J)