J U D G M E N T This L.P.A is filed against the order in C.M.A.No.315 of 1991 dated 12-12-1991 wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court while upholding the Succession Certificate given in favour of the appellants herein under Section 373 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 directed the appellants to deposit Rs.22,000/- towards the share of the respondents within two weeks from the date lot the judgement and also permitted them to withdraw the same on furnishing security. Mr.Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contends that when once the learned Single Judge upheld the Succession Certificate given in favour of Ins clients, gravely erred in directing his clients to deposit an amount of Rs.22,000/- in the Court and in permitting the respondents to withdraw the same. The facts of this case are that one M..Atchaiah who is an employee in A.P. State Electricity Board married the Ist respondent and through her he begotten the respondents 2 and 3 and after some time it seemed some disputes have arisen between the respondent and the late Atchaiah and the 1st respondent filed O.S.No.489 of 1971 against Atchaiah seeking maintenance for herself as well as her children on the file of 1st Additional District Munsif, Visakhapatnam. The learned magistrate granted Ra.30/- as maintenance to respondent No. I and Rs.22.50 paise for each of the children per month. While the execution petition is pending, the authorities seemed to have entered into an agreement on 7-12-1973 wherein the 1st respondent agreed to receive Rs.4,000/- in lump sum towards past and future maintenance and a thatched house in Kanchanpalem. The case of the appellants is that the said agreement was filed in execution petition by filing E.A.No.235 of 1974 while the affidavit, petition and Xerox copy of the agreement were filed in the Court as exhibits, the appellants did not chose to file the order that was passed by the executing Court in that E.P. Be that as it may, the parties seemed to be living together after estrangement and in fact the Ist respondent gave birth to respondents 4 to 6. At the same time, late Atchaiah was also living with the Ist appellant and the appellant did not speak of her marriage with late Atchaiah. At the same time, late Atchaiah was also living with the Ist appellant and the appellant did not speak of her marriage with late Atchaiah. The case of the appellants is that after late Atchaiah divorced the Ist respondent , the Ist appellant herein was married to him and she gave birth to appellants 2 to 6. At the same time, there is no proof of her marriage with late Atchaiah. On the other hand, the admitted case is that the Ist appellant was given in marriage to PW-2 when she was minor and after she became major she started living with late Atchaiah while he was living with his married wife. Be that as it may, we need not go into that controversy here for the simple reason that even children born to a concubine are treated as legal heirs in Hindu Law. After the death of Atchaiah, the appellants approached the M.R.O for issuance of a Legal Heir Certificates and the M.R.O informed them that the respondents also filed their objections seeking Legal Heir Certificate and as such he cannot give the certificates to them. In those circumstances, they filet OP.No. 155/1988 seeking Succession Certificate under Section 373 of the Indian Succession Act and the District Judge by his order dated 24th December 1990 issued Succession Certificate in favour of the appellants by holding that under Ex.A-3 it is clearly mentioned that there is a relationship of husband and wife between the Ist respondent and Atchaiah and all claims are settled and also it is mentioned that she has no right to claim any share in the property of Atchaiah Further, the nomination Ex.XI shows that the Ist appellant herein is the nominee of late Atchaiah meaning there was no relationship of husband and wife in between the deceased Atchaiah and the Ist respondent and also that the claims of the respondents were settled earlier. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the respondents filed AAO.No.3l5 of 1991. A learned single Judge of this Court by an order dated 12th December. 1991 on an erroneous view of the matter having held that it is not possible to determine in a summary enquiry as to whether the respondents plaintiffs seized to be legal heirs as per terms of the said agreement and they are not entitled to claim even as the heirs of late Atchaiah. 1991 on an erroneous view of the matter having held that it is not possible to determine in a summary enquiry as to whether the respondents plaintiffs seized to be legal heirs as per terms of the said agreement and they are not entitled to claim even as the heirs of late Atchaiah. Likewise his Lordship observed that if the marriage of late Atchaiah with appellant No. I is void her nomination cannot be held to be valid and these issues have to be considered in a regular suit, having taken the above view his Lordship is under an impression that the Court can only grant one certificate in favour of impression that the Court can only grant one certificate in favour of one person or some of the persons jointly. In that view of the matter the learned Judge directed the appellants herein to deposit Rs.22,00/- ie., 1/3rd amount that is likely to fall to their share and permitted the respondents to withdraw the same on furnishing the security. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed. The procedure to be followed for issuance of a certificate is specified under Section 373 of the Indian Succession Act, which is extracted here under: 373. Procedure on application. (1) If the District Judge is satisfied that there is ground for entertaining the application, he shall fix a day for the hearing thereof and cause notice of the application and of the day fixed for the hearing - (a) to be served on any person to whom, in the opinion of the Judge, special notice of the application should be given, and (b) to be posted on some conspicuous part of the court-house and published in such other manner; if any, as the Judge, subject to any rules made by the High Court in this behalf, thinks fit, and upon the day fixed, or as soon thereafter as may be practicable, shall proceed to decide in a summary manner the right to the certificate. (2) When the Judge decides the right thereto to belong to the applicant, the Judge shall make. an order for the grant of the certificate to him. (2) When the Judge decides the right thereto to belong to the applicant, the Judge shall make. an order for the grant of the certificate to him. (3) If 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 a 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. (4) 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 fiftiess in other respect or the applicants. From the above it is seen that if the District Judge is satisfied that there is a ground for entertaining the application he shall cause notice of the application to any person who in his opinion feels that notice of application should be given apart from affixing the notice in a conspicuous part of the Court-house on the day fixed for hearing and he may decide the matter in a summary manner with regard issuance of the legal heir certificate. Under Sub-Section, 2 if the Judge is able to decide the rights of the applicant he can straight away possession order for the grant of certificate to him. Under Sub-Section 3 if the judge cannot decide the right to the certificate if there is any intricate questions of law to be decided and it is not possible to demand for he may grant certificate to the applicant if he appears to be the person having prima facie the best title thereto. Under Sub-Section 4 if there are more than one application seeking grant of the certificate the judge may decide to whom the certificate is to be granted having regard to the extent of interest and the fitness in other respect or the applicants. In other words, if there are more than one application and the judge is able to decide to whom the certificate has to be granted he can do so. In other words, if there are more than one application and the judge is able to decide to whom the certificate has to be granted he can do so. To be more specific, if the judge comes to the conclusion that the applicant as well as the objectors are the legal heirs of the deceased person he can issue Legal Heir Certificate by determining the extent of interest of the respective parties in the estate of the deceased. Hence, the view taken by the learned Single Judge that only one Legal Heir Certificate can be given and if he still entertains any doubt with regard to the claim of the other party an equitable order can be made by the court while issuing certificate in favour of the applicant seems to be erroneous. Though, the certificate may be one, the court is always within its competence to grant certificate in favour of all the legal heirs duly determining the extent of interest in the estate of the deceased. To that extent the finding of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and it is accordingly reversed. Now, coming to the finding recorded by the trial Court, admittedly the appellants herein filed only Xerox copy of the agreement, which is inadmissible in evidence. Even assuming for a moment that the Xerox copy of the judgment can be looked into, we have perused the document and we found that there was no severance of status between late Atchaiah and the Ist respondent and all that the agreement says is that in lieu of maintenance granted by the court, the Ist respondent has agreed to receive one house and Rs.4,000/- in lump-sum for the past and future maintenance, but there was no mention that there is a divorce between the parties. Unfortunately, the trial Court relied upon the statement “that the claims of the respondents are settled and she has no right to claim any share in the property of Atchaiah. We are afraid that there is no mention of the late Atchaiah. What all it states is that she will not have any claim in future payment in view of the payment of amount in lump-sum. Hence, the trial Court gravely erred in holding that the marriage was dissolved between Late Atchaiah and the Ist respondent. We are afraid that there is no mention of the late Atchaiah. What all it states is that she will not have any claim in future payment in view of the payment of amount in lump-sum. Hence, the trial Court gravely erred in holding that the marriage was dissolved between Late Atchaiah and the Ist respondent. Further, it is to be seen that even assuming that the agreement speaks of a divorce, while customary marriage is recognised in law customary divorce recognised unless a competent Court dissolves the marriage in accordance with law. Hence, it is not difficult to hold that the respondents are also the legal heirs of late Atchaiah. Well another circumstance in this case is that though the Ist appellant has given birth to as many as 5 children the marriage between her an Atchaiah has not taken place. This plea will clinchingly prove that marriage between late Atchaiah and the 1st respondent herein is subsisting and he may have been afraid of marriage with the 1st appellant because of Section 494 where under he is liable to be prosecuted for Bigamy. But, at the same time, late Atchaiah nominated her to receive the retiremental benefits etc she cannot be disinherited from claiming a share in the estate of the deceased, But she being the nominee of late Atchaiah even if she is entitled to receive the amounts due from the employer the entire estate belongs to all the legal heirs. Hence, the direction given by the learned Single Judge is perfectly in order though the reasoning given by him wont appeal to us. Mr.Rudra Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a Division Bench’s judgment of this Court in MURARI Vs. T. RAMMOHAN RAO (1) wherein the Division bench of this Court held that as adoption of the appellant is proved and he being a Class I heir he is entitled for grant of succession certificate in respect of the gold ornaments subject to furnishing security for its value and directed the respondents to establish title to the property in a civil Court. Such direction can be given only when the court is unable to decide who are the legal heirs in summary proceedings. Here that situation has not arisen and as such the judgment cited by the counsel is of no avail. Such direction can be given only when the court is unable to decide who are the legal heirs in summary proceedings. Here that situation has not arisen and as such the judgment cited by the counsel is of no avail. Accordingly, the L.P.A. is dismissed declaring that the respondents are also the legal heirs of Late Atchaiah. --X--