69 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench : Hon’bie Shri H.L. Dattu, C.J. Writ Petition No.2834 of 1988 1. Ramsagar Gupta, aged about 30 yers, son of Shri Rayare Gua, resident of Seder Road, Ambik'apur, Post & Tahsii Ambikapur, District Sarguja (M.P.) 2. Basant Gupta, wed about 25 years, sn of Shri Rampyare Gupta, resident of Sadar Road, Ambikapur, P.S. & Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja (MP) Vs. District Judge, Saruja, at Ambikapur. Civil Judge, Class I, Ambikapur Smt. Lori Bai, aged about 45 years, windo f Late Shri Rampyare Gupta; Shri Rampyare Gupta; ahavir Gupta, aged 2O years, son of late Kumari Sandhya, aged 18 years; F35“ 45. WN‘r : Smt. Hamida Siddique, counsel for he petitioners. Shri Sham/an Chandel, cunsel fo respondent No.3. (Passed on 4 April, 2007) in this petition tiled under Articies 226/227 of the Constitution of india, the petitioners cali in question the order passed by the learned District Judge, Ambikapur in Civii Appeal No.3/1987 dated 29-74988. By the impugned order, the learned District Judge has confirmed the order passed by the teamed Civii Judge in Succession Case No.1/1 985 under Section 372 of tV' indian Succession Act (henceforth ‘the Act’) dated 10—4-1 987. Petitioners a mp pt o g w o M Respondents t Kumari Biu, aged 1 6 years; ' nd daughters of late Shri Rampyare Gupta, minor through her mother, Smt. Lori Bai; Ali residents of Darripara, Ambikapur, P.S. & Tahsii Ambikapur, Distric Sarguja, MP. Present t o r ORAL ORDER “; The petitioners claim that they are sons of Late Shri Rampyare Gupt. Ane the death of his first wife, it appears that he was living with one Smt. Lori Bai. Smt. Lori Bai is arrayed as respondent No.3 in this writ petition. Respondents No.4 to 6 are said to be the so and daughters of Smt. Lori Bai. (2) a r n (3) Smt. Hamida Siddique! ieamed counsef appearing for the petitioners, at the time of hearing of this writ petition, would submit that the Coutts below could not have granted a succession certificate without grant of a probate order or letter of administration in view of Section 376 of the Act and, therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the learned trial Judges were in error in passing the impugned orders. (4) Admittedly, the father of the petitioners in this writ petition was a Hindu and it appears that he had executed a Will in favour of Smt. Lori Bai. Based on the Will, she had approached the Civil Court for grant of a succession certificate under Section 372 of the Act. Since the father of the petitioners was a Hindu, grant of a probate or letter of administration is not a must for grant of a certmcate under the provisions of the Act (5) in view of the above, the legal contentions canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted by me. Accordingly, confirming the orders passed by the Courts below, this writ petition requires to be ejected and it is rejeced. Ordered accordingly. r t