JUDGMENT 1, THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 13th April, 1983, passed by Sri A, P, Bhattacharya, learned district Judge, Malda, in Misc, Case No, 115 of 1980 for revocation of the succession certificate and the extended certificate, 2, ON the application by Ashit Kumar Sarkar for the succession certificate filed on 3rd April, 1969 for realisation of certain debts etc, with the allegation that his father Balaram Sarkar died intestate on 5th March 1967 leaving his two sons, Ashit Kumar Sarkar (applicant) and Arun Kumar sarkar and two married daughters, Abha Rani Kundu and Priti Kusum roy Chowdhury and that the applicant being one of the sons of the deceased had the right to get the succession certificate for realisation of the debts etc, due to the deceased; the learned District Judge after service of the notices upon the relatives as mentioned in the application and holding the necessary enquiry, granted the succession certificate on 9, 10, 6 9 in favour of the applicant Ashit Kumar Sarkar in respect of the debts etc, as mentioned in the schedule to the application itself, On a further application by Ashit Kumar Sarkar for the extended certificate in respect of some other debts due to the deceased, which were not included in the succession certificate, the learned District Judge granted the extended certificate in respect of those debts etc, on 20th september, 1976, 3, ARUN Kumar Sarkar, the other son of the deceased, filed the application in Misc, Case No, 115 of 1980 on 6th October, 1980 for revocation of the succession certificate dated 9, 10, 69 and the extended certificate dated 2 0th September, 1 976 granted in favour of Ashit Kumar Sankar, It was alleged, in brief, in the said application that each of the to sons and two daughters left by their deceased father had one fourth share in the properties left by the deceased and that Ashit Kumar Sarkar knowing full well that he had any one-fourth share, obtained the succession certificate and the extended certificate in respect of the entire debts etc, due to the deceased by practicing fraud upon the court and that consequently arun Kumar Sarkar suffered loss as Ashit Kumar Sarkar had realised all the debts etc, due to the deceased on the basis of such certificates, 4, THE application for revocation was opposed by Ashit Kumar Sarkar denying the allegations of in respect of the entire debts etc, due to the deceased by practicing fraud upon the court and that consequently arun Kumar Sarkar suffered loss as Ashit Kumar Sarkar had realised all the debts etc, due to the deceased on the basis of such certificates, 4, THE application for revocation was opposed by Ashit Kumar Sarkar denying the allegations of practising fraud upon the court and contending, inter alia, that he had made the true statements in the applications for succession certificate and, the extended certificate and that he paid rs, 15,000/- to Arun Kumar Sarkar out of the amounts realised by him, It was further contended that Arun Kumar Sarkar took loan of Rs, 6,000/-from Ashit Kumar Sarkar on the occasion of his daughter's marriage and that on Ashit's demands for the repayment of that loan and for the refund of the share in the Stamp Duties; and Court Fee paid by Ashit Kumar sarkar on the Succession Certificate and the Extended Certificate, the trouble arose resulting in the filing of the application for revocation of the certificates on false grounds, The learned District Judge by his impugned order revoked the succession certificate and the extended certificate on the finding that ashit Kumar Sarkar obtained the certificate by practising fraud upon the Court an he had obtained the certificates for realisation of the entire debts due to the deceased although he had only one-fourth share and that ashit Kumar Sarkar could not prove that the notice of the application for succession certificates was served upon Arun Kumar Sarkar, 5, ASHIT Kumar Sarkar being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order has preferred this appeal, Mr, Sen appearing for the appellant has submitted that the learned District Judge misconceived the application and the relevant provisions of the Indian Succession Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) in connection with the granting of the succession certificate and the revocation thereof and that the learned District judge has also misappreciated the evidence adduced in the case, According to Mr, Serf, Ashit Kumar Sarkar filed the application for succession certificate and the extended certificate with the consent of his brother Arun kumar Sarkar and other sisters and made the true statements as required under the relevant provisions of the Act for relaisation of the debts etc, due to their deceased father and that the learned District Judge duly granted the certificates Ashit Kumar Sarkar filed the application for succession certificate and the extended certificate with the consent of his brother Arun kumar Sarkar and other sisters and made the true statements as required under the relevant provisions of the Act for relaisation of the debts etc, due to their deceased father and that the learned District Judge duly granted the certificates in accordance with law in the form as specified in the schedule to the Act and that Ashit Kumar Sarkar did not practice fraud upon the court in obtaining the certificates, As regards the service of notice upon Arun Kumar Sarkar, Mr, Sen has submitted that no such plea has been taken in the petition for revocation and that the materials in the record show that the notice was served upon him, 6, MR, Pal appearing for the respondent no, 1, Arun Kumar Sarkar, has supported the impugned order in this submission, According to Mr, Pal, Ashit Kumar Sarkar obtained the certificates by practising fraud upon the court as he suppressed the fact in his application that he had only one-fourth share in the property left by his deceased father and as he did not make the true statements in this respect in the application, Mr, Pal has further submitted that although Arun Kumar Sarkar has not alleged in his application for revocation that the notice was not served upon him but he has stated in his evidence that he did not receive the notice and disowned his alleged signature on the service report, Section 372 of the Act deals with how and in what manner the application for succession certificate is to be made out and what particulars are to be set forth in such application, Clauses (a) to (f) of sub-section (1) of section 372 of the Act speak of the particulars to be set forth, It appears from Ashit Kumar Sarkar's application for succession certificate, the copy of which is at pages 15 to 10 of the Paper Book, that the particulars were set forth therein in accordance with the aforesaid clauses of the Act, The said application for succession certificate appears to be in accordance with the model form of the application for succession certificate in Item No, 11 at, page 565 of Appendix A to B, B, Mitra's indian Succession Act by A, C, Sen (1976 Edn,, The application for the extended certificate at pages accordance with the aforesaid clauses of the Act, The said application for succession certificate appears to be in accordance with the model form of the application for succession certificate in Item No, 11 at, page 565 of Appendix A to B, B, Mitra's indian Succession Act by A, C, Sen (1976 Edn,, The application for the extended certificate at pages 2 3 to 2 8 of the Paper Book appears to have been made in accordance with the provisions of section 376 of the Act, 7, IN paragraph 3 of the application for the succession certificate, ashit Kumar sarkar has clearly stated that his father died leaving two sons, Ashit Kumar Sarkar and Arun Kumar Sarkar and two married daughters, abha Rani Kundu and Priti Kusum Roy Chowdhury, In para 4, of the said application he has stated his right in which he as the applicant claims the succession certificate by saying that he is one of the sons of the deceased and he is looking after the properties left by the deceased, In the schedule to the application, Ashit Kumar Sarkar has mentioned the debts etc, in respect of which the succession certificate has been applied for, The Act as it is, does not bar any one of the relatives or heirs left by the deceased to make an application for the succession certificate in respect of the debt or debts due to the deceased or in respect of the portion thereof, By clause (d) of section 3 72 (1) of the Act "the legislature intends that a person to whom a certificate shall be granted must be a person who has some title or interest in the debt to collect for which a certificate is applied for", The model form of the application for the succession certificate and the requirements and the particulars as enjoined in section 372 (1) of the Act do not require the applicant to make a statement about his share in the schedule property as the heir of the deceased, The form of the succession certificate, as given in the schedule to the Act, also does not require the District Judge to mention the share of the applicant as heir of the deceased in respect of the debts etc, to be collected on the basis of the succession certificate, "succession certificate is not a final adjudication of the question as to who is the succession certificate, as given in the schedule to the Act, also does not require the District Judge to mention the share of the applicant as heir of the deceased in respect of the debts etc, to be collected on the basis of the succession certificate, "succession certificate is not a final adjudication of the question as to who is the next heir, The grant of succession certificate merely clothes the holder of the certificate with an authority to realise the debts of the deceased and to give an authority of discharge, He is free to dispose of the amounts so realised in accordance with the rights of the persons who are entitled to it", 8, IT is, therefore, clear that the succession certificate is granted to the applicant on a summary enquiry without going into the detailed enquiry as to the actual share of the applicant in the properties left by the deceased and that after realisation of the debts due to the deceased on the basis of the succession certificate if the certificate holder does not dispose of the amount so realised in accordance with the rights and shares of the persons who are entitled to it, aggrieved person may bring a suit for getting the appropriate relief, "the Act is not intended to afford the litigant parties' an opportunity of litigating contested, questions, of title to property but though the enquiry is directed to be summary it is to be an enquiry in the right to the certificate, The right to the certificate may not be the same thing as the right to the estate of the deceased proprietor, but it is altogether unconnected with that right, for it would be unreasonable to hold that the tight to the certificate may belong to a stranger who had no connection with the estate, " 9, IN the deposition Arun Kumar Sarkar, the petitioner of the petition for revocation, has admitted that it was agreed between him and Ashit kumar Sarkar that as he was a resident of Halda he (Ashit) would apply for succession certificate and do the needful in the matter and after obtaining the certificate he would give their proportionate shares, 10, IN the application for succession certificate the applicant has clearly stated "we are the relatives and heirs left by the deceased", It is true that he has not stated that he has one-fourth share and (Ashit) would apply for succession certificate and do the needful in the matter and after obtaining the certificate he would give their proportionate shares, 10, IN the application for succession certificate the applicant has clearly stated "we are the relatives and heirs left by the deceased", It is true that he has not stated that he has one-fourth share and as the law and the Form therein stand he had no scope to make such statements, Mention may be made here that the applicant had never stated also in the application that he had 16 annas share in the debts to be realised; we, therefore, do not find any element of fraud, concealment or false suggestion in the averments of the applicant nor do we find any untrue allegation in the application, The learned District Judge is, therefore, completely erroneous when he arrived at the finding that the applicant obtained the succession certificate by practising fraud upon the court because of his non mention of his actual share in the petition as an heir of the deceased, The extended certificate was granted by the learned District judge in respect of the debts etc, which were not included in the succession certificate because of their absence in the relevant application for the succession certificate, On consideration of the materials in the record, we find here also that the learned District Judge committed mistake by holding that the extended certificate was also vitiated by fraud, 11, 'IN view of what has been stated above, the succession certificate and the extended certificate cannot be revoke on such ground, No other ground for revocation as enumerated IN section 383 of the Act dealINg with the revocation of certificate was alleged IN the application for revocation, 12, ALTHOUGH not alleged in the petition for revocation, the petitioner arun Kumar Sarkar made out a case for the first time in his deposition that the notice of the application for the succession certificate was not received, by him and that his alleged signature on the connected service report was made by him, Arun Kumar Sarkar (P, W, I) deposed on 23rd march 1983 and the succession certificate on the basis of the application for such certificate was granted on 9, 10, 1969,, About 14 years after Arun kumar Sarkar has come to say that the signature on the service report was not his although he has admitted report was made by him, Arun Kumar Sarkar (P, W, I) deposed on 23rd march 1983 and the succession certificate on the basis of the application for such certificate was granted on 9, 10, 1969,, About 14 years after Arun kumar Sarkar has come to say that the signature on the service report was not his although he has admitted in his deposition that with his consent ashit Kumar Sarkar filed the application for succession certificate, The learned District Judge has observed that as Ashit Kumar Sarkar did not examine bailiff to prove the service after such denial by Arun Kumar sarkar, the service of the notice upon Arun Kumar Sarkar could not be proved, The said observation of the learned District Judge would have its merits provided there would have been no other evidence, Ashit Kumar sarkar (O, P, W2) who is none else: then the brother of Arun Kumar Sarkar and who is undoubtedly familiar with the signature of Arun Kumar sarkar has stated in his deposition on oath that the signature is the real signature of Arun Kumar Sarkar, The court dealing with the application for the succession certificate by its order dated 19, 5, 69 recorded that the notice upon Arun Kumar Sarkar (defendant no, 1) was served, which is, however, not the conclusive evidence as per the decision in 1908 CLJ Vo, II 251 (Mir Tapur Ali Hossain v, Gopi Narayan and Ors,) but undoubtedly is a piece of evidence, If Arun Kumar Sarkar was so serious about his denial he could have prayed before the court for getting the disputed signature examined by the handwriting expert his admitted signature, But he did not, In view of what has been stated above, we are of the view that the learned District Judge committed the first mistake by allowing Arun kumar Sarkar to make out such a case for the first time in his deposition without making out such a case in the application for revocation and committed the second mistake in arriving at the finding of non service of notice upon Arun Kumar Sarkar after the lapse of about 14 years in the face of Ashit's evidence that the alleged signature is the signature of his brother Arun Kumar Sarkar and the court's order dated 19, 5, 69 recording the service of the notice upon Arun Kumar Sarkar, We do not find that the proceedings of non service of notice upon Arun Kumar Sarkar after the lapse of about 14 years in the face of Ashit's evidence that the alleged signature is the signature of his brother Arun Kumar Sarkar and the court's order dated 19, 5, 69 recording the service of the notice upon Arun Kumar Sarkar, We do not find that the proceedings to obtain the succession certificate were defective in substance to enable the learned District Judge to revoke the certificates, In the facts and circumstances, we cannot accede to Mr, Pals prayer for remand of the case for giving the opportunity to the petitioner, arun Kumar Sarkar, to amend the position for revocation with regard to the non service of notice, In the result, the appeal is allowed, The impugned order revoking the certificate and the extended certificate is set aside and the Misc, Case No, 115 of 1980 is dismissed, We, however, make no order as to costs, Appeal allowed,