Judgment 1. Petitioners are intervenors, who had filed an intervention petition in Succession Certificate Case No. 9 of 1998, which was filed by the two opposite parties, who are daughters of the deceased Kalawati Devi for grant of succession certificate with respect to three fixed deposits and one savings bank account of late Katawati Devi in Allahabad Bank. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 2.7.2004 passed in the aforesaid case, by which the learned 1st Subordinate Judge, Araria rejected their intervention petition on the ground that since the will claimed by the intervenors was not probated, neither it can be taken into evidence, norany order can be passed on its basis. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners challenges the aforesaid impugned order and submits that the deceased Kalawati Devi was a charitable person and had started several educational institutions and one of them was the petitioners college, namely, Kalavati Snatak Mahavidyalay and for the social services rendered by her she was also awarded by Padma Shree. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that apart from other properties, the said Kalawati Devi had three fixed deposits and one savings bank account in Allahabad Bank and she executed a will in petitioners favour on 8.11.1988 for the aforesaid three fixed deposites alongwith another savings bank account. Learned counsel for the petitioners also avers that the said Kalawati Devi died on 23.11.1988 but before that she handed over the said fixed deposits certificates etc. to the petitioners. In the aforesaid circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that opposite parties had no manner of claim over the said deposits as they could not inherit the same because the said deposits devolved upon the petitioners immediately after the death of Kalawati Devi and the opposite parties would have no interest in the same. It is further averred by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the said circumstances succession certificate case filed by the opposite parties was frivolous and it was necessary for them to intervene in the said case, which cannot be properly adjudicated without hearing the petitioners, but the learned court below rejected their petition by the impugned order, which is clearly illegal, arbitrary and perverse. 4. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that according to Annexure-1 series, statements of the bank, it is quite apparent that the first two authorities issued by Kalawati Devi were dated 6.11.1986, whereas the first two deposits were made much later on 19.4.1988 and third fixed deposit was made on 7.11.1988 and the authority was also of the same date. Hence he submits that the said authorities were clearly frivolous as they were much prior to the deposits made and also that if the authorities were already there, there was no occasion for the alleged will executed by Kalawati Devi on 8.11.1988, which, according to him, was a forged document as would be clear from comparison of the signatures of Kalawati Devi on the said Will as well as on the statements of the bank. Learned counsel for the opposite parties further submits that forged and fraudulent nature of the claim was writ large on the materials on record and hence there was clear suspicion about the Will and it was not even fit for being legally probated. In support of his contention he relies upon a decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyan Singh V/s. Smt. Chhoti and others reported in (1990)1 Supreme Court Cases 266. Learned counsel for the opposite parties further submits that if there are several claimants, then the court has to find out the extent of their interest and grant succession certificate to one person, who may be directed to file security to safeguard the interest of other claimants. In this connection he relies upon a decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Ganga Devi and others V/s. Smt. Munia reported in A.I.R. 1966 Allahabad 107. Learned counsel for the opposite parties also submits that the deceased Kalawati Devi died in the year 1988 and for so many years the intervenors did not file any case for probate of the Will and have filed a frivolous petition in the instant case, although their entire claim is based on falsehood. Hence, he submits that the impugned order is legal, proper and justified. 5. Hence, he submits that the impugned order is legal, proper and justified. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the intervenors are claiming on the basis of a Will, which is also supported by the banks statement as well as possession of documents. So far the objection, that the authorities were of the year 1986 and the deposits were made in 1988, is concerned, it is quite apparent that the Will (Annexure-2) is dated 8.11.1988 much after the deposits made by the deceased Kalawati Devi. Hence on that score the said objection is not sustainable. 6. So far the decision in the case of Kalyan Singh (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the opposite parties is concerned, it is not at all applicable to the instant case at this stage, as it says that if there is some suspicion about the Will which was sought to be probated, the person who has claimed on the basis of the Will has to remove the suspicion. Hence this may be relevant only in a probate case and not in a case for grant of succession certificate. So far the other case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the opposite parties in the case of Smt. Ganga Devi (supra) is concerned, it is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case, as it only holds that if several claimants are there, then the court has to find out the extent of their interest and it can grant succession certificate to one of the claimants, who has to deposit security to safeguard the interest of other claimants. But here in the instant case there is no question of several claimants including the intervenors as if the claim of the petitioners on the basis of the Will is upheld, then the daughters of Kalawati Devi would have no interest at all and if the claim of the interveners is rejected then they would not be one of the claimants. Hence the petitioners and the daughters of Kalawati Devi can never be joint claimants. 7. However, in any view of the matter, the genuineness or otherwise of the Will can neither be decided by this court in its revisional jurisdiction, nor by the court below considering the succession certificate case. Hence the petitioners and the daughters of Kalawati Devi can never be joint claimants. 7. However, in any view of the matter, the genuineness or otherwise of the Will can neither be decided by this court in its revisional jurisdiction, nor by the court below considering the succession certificate case. Furthermore, since the Will is admittedly not probated, the learned court below was quite justified in refusing to add the intervenors as parties to the case on the basis of the Will. But at the same time it is quite apparent that unless the genuineness or otherwise of the Will is decided, it cannot be said that Kalawati Devi had died intestate and her daughters had any claim in the said deposits. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is necessary that genuineness or otherwise of the Will be considered and decided first. 8. All the aforesaid matters depend upon the question whether Kalawati Devi died intestate, but the said question cannot be considered and decided by the learned court below while considering the question of grant of succession certificate. Hence, there is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. 9. However, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the intervenors will be filing a separate case before the reli evant authority for probate of the Will within a month. Hence, if the petitioners file such a case within the aforesaid period, they may move again before the learned court below for being added as parties to the Succession Certificate Case Nos. 99/1998, which the learned court below will consider and decide in accordance with law. 10. With the aforesaid directions/observations this civil revision is disposed of.