Dr. Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the objector -Kadar Bux s/o Taiyab Ji against the impugned order dated 04.12.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Parbatsar allowing the application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short, 'the Act') filed by the sons of Mohd. Ayub, who is brother of the present appellant -Kadar Bux.
(2.) THE applicants were Mohd. Yakub, Mohd. Aslam and Mohd. Akram, all sons of Mohd. Ayub. The operative portion of the impugned order dated 04.12.2010 is quoted hereinbelow for ready reference: - Learned counsel for the objector -appellant, Mr. Kaushal Sharma appearing for Mr. S.P. Sharma relying upon the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal Vs. All General Public & Ors. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2403/2011) - decided on 04.09.2012 urged that while granting a succession certificate in favour of the applicants under Section 372 of the Act, the learned court below erred in holding the applicants entitled to succeed to the rights of Mohd. Ayub in the mining lease No. 181 measuring 107 x 200 feet in Gunawati Range, Makrana, and also the deposit in the Bank Account No. 28/2121 and SB Account No. 38/5950 in the State Bank of India, Makrana. He submitted that the mining lease was, on the basis of Bapi Patta, issued in favour of the grandfather of the objector as well as father of the present applicants, and therefore, the objector already had a right in the said mining lease. He also submitted that Civil Suit No. 15/95 has been filed by the objector in the learned court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Makrana, which is still pending, with respect to share in such mining rights of the objector.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is satisfied that no interference in the impugned order is called for, at the instance of the objector -appellant, inasmuch as his civil rights in the mining lease in question would depend upon the fate of the civil suit filed by him, as aforesaid. Such proprietary rights of the parties are not determined in the application under Section 372 of the Act, which only decides the right of succession of a person dying intestate under Section 372 of the Act. There is no dispute from the side of the appellant that all the three applicants are sons of Late Mohd. Ayub. On the basis of the said succession, the observations made in the impugned order for mutation entries in the mining lease does not affect the civil rights of the present appellant, as already stated above, will depend upon the fate of the civil suit filed by him. The decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Bhajan Lal (supra) relied by the learned counsel for the appellant is also not applicable to the facts of the present case, in which the appeal was dismissed by the coordinate Bench of this Court relying upon the provisions of Section 370 of the Act, which puts a restriction on the grant of succession certificate with respect to any 'debt or security', for which a letter of administration or probate has to be obtained under Section 212 or Section 213 of the Act, with an exception for the Indian Christians in the proviso of Section 370 of the Act. The said judgment is of little help to the present appellant. The present appeal is thus found to be devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.;