ORDER S.K. Dubey, J. -- 1. This is a revision against the order passed on 3.9.1990 in Succession Case No. 33/1990by VIIth Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge Gwalior, whereby the Succession Court ordered to grant a Succession Certificate under section 374 of the Indian Succession Act (for short the 'Act') on furnishing security of Rs. 2,000/- by the grantee, the petitioner. 2. Shri P.D. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Succession Certificate was sought by an application under section 372 of the Act for the shares held by the deceased Bala Bhau Pundlik Hardikar and Smt. Annapurna alias Kamlabai w/o Bala Bahau Pundlik Hardikar of M/s. Straw Products Limited, New Delhi. As both holders shares died on 25.10.1989 and 30.3.1989 respectively, leaving behind the petitioner the son, another son Sharad, Lila Devi and Manisha the two daughters. Except these, there are no legal heirs of two deceased. None of them objected for grant of Succession Certificate in favour of the petitioner. Sharad also appeared and stated for grant in favour of petitioner only. Sisters did not appear, but filed their affidavits which were proved by the petitioner and also were admitted in evidence by the Succession Court, hence, the order of requiring security from the grantee/petitioner is not legal. 3. After hearing counsel, I am of the opinion that the order of requisition of furnishing of the security in the facts of the case cannot be sustained. Section 375 of the Act deals with the requisition of security from grantee of certificate, which is quoted in extenso. (i) "The District Judge shall in any case in which he proposes to proceed under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) of section 373, and may, In 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 or 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. (ii) The Judge, may, on application made by petition and on cause shown to his satisfaction and upon such terms as to security, or providing that the money received be paid into the 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 trustee for all persons interested, such amount as may be recoverable thereunder". 4. A bare reading of the section shows that the requisition of the security or administration of bond is compulsory in two cases, viz: Under section 373(3) if (a) the Judge cannot decide the right to the certificate without determining questions of law or fact which seem to be too intricate and difficult for determination in 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; (b) 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. 5. In cases which are not covered u/s. 373(3)(a) & (b) of the Act, law does not prevent the Court while granting a Succession Certificate to demand a security, but requiring the security is discretionary, which has to be exercised judiciously. In the present case, in hand no reasons or special circumstances requiring security have been given. As the object of the security is for rendering an account of debts and security received by grantee of certificate and for indemnifying those persons i.e. heirs who may be entitled to the whole or any part of those debts and securities. In other words, the object of requiring security is to protect the right of heirs inter se so that the person who is ultimately found to be entitled to the whole or parts of the debt is indemnified against any loss, see Mt. Charjo and another v. Dina Nath and others [AIR 1937 Lahore 196(2)]. 6. In other words, the object of requiring security is to protect the right of heirs inter se so that the person who is ultimately found to be entitled to the whole or parts of the debt is indemnified against any loss, see Mt. Charjo and another v. Dina Nath and others [AIR 1937 Lahore 196(2)]. 6. In the present case, though, the other brother and the two sisters are also the heir, but they after notice of the application for grant of Succession Certificate have not objected to the grant in favour of the petitioner only. By their own arrangement, they have treated the petitioner as real owner and that is why they did not object to the grant. Besides from the order, even apprehension of any dispute or rival claim cannot be inferred and that too for the shares valuing Rs. 1,050/- only. 7. Therefore, as no special reasons or circumstances have been recorded in the order for requiring the security and the order being cryptic in that respect, I feel that the discretion has not been rightly exercised. 8. In the result, the revision is allowed and the order of requiring security for grant of Succession Certificate to the grantee, the petitioner is quashed. In view of the above, the Succession Court now shall grant the certificate to the petitioner without any security.