Judgment Bhaskar Bhattacharya, CJ.—This First Appeal is at the instance of a company whose share certificates are one of the items of the subject matter of proceeding for grant of succession certificate and is directed against an order dated 16th January 2013 passed by the learned Judge, 10th Court, City Civil Court at Ahmedabad, in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 685 of 2012, thereby allowing the proceeding for grant of succession certificate in favour of the respondent. 2. It appears that the respondent filed an application for grant of succession certificate, on the allegation that his father was the original owner of the property who died in the year 1998 leaving behind the mother of the applicant and the applicant, being widow and the son respectively. According to the applicant, the mother of the applicant died in the year 2009 and thereafter by virtue of provisions of the Indian Succession Act, he is entitled to the shares which were standing originally in the name of father of the applicant and some of them subsequently transferred in the name of his mother. 3. We have already pointed out that out of the three items mentioned in the schedule of the application, one of the items was the share certificates of the appellant before us. The other item was some share certificates of Bank of Baroda and the third item was some immovable property standing in the name of his father. 4. In this appeal, Mr. Buch, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, has fairly conceded that he is interested only in the item which relates to the shares of his client, although he also pointed out to us some inherent defects in the application for succession. 5. So far the grievance of the appellant is concerned, it appears that while allowing the application, the Court below made the following observations: “This application is allowed. Office to issue succession certificate in the name of the applicant Punit Shashikant Chauhan. The applicant is directed to furnish a simple surety and bond of like amount, as stated in the schedule of the property at Exh.16. It is made clear that applicant is entitled for the share as per order of B.I.F.R. i.e. reduction in the equity share of the deceased by 70% and two 9% Non Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shares of Rs. 10=00 each and one equity share of Rs.10=00 each. It is made clear that applicant is entitled for the share as per order of B.I.F.R. i.e. reduction in the equity share of the deceased by 70% and two 9% Non Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shares of Rs. 10=00 each and one equity share of Rs.10=00 each. The applicant is directed to pay requisite Court fees, if any.” 6. By referring to the aforesaid observations, Mr. Buch contends that a Court granting succession certificate had no occasion to make any observation regarding entitlement for the share as per the order of BIFR i.e. reduction in equity shares of the deceased by 70% and two 9% Non Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shares of Rs.10/- each and one equity share of Rs. 10/- each. 7. Mr. Buch also pointed out that there was no scope of grant of any succession certificate in respect of immovable property, which the Court below has given, though his client is not prejudicially affected by that portion of the order. 8. Mr. Karia, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent–claimant, fairly submits that in a proceeding for grant of succession certificate, there was no scope of making immovable property a subject matter of the application as for the purpose of immovable property appropriate remedy for his client was to file an application for grant of Letter of Administration. Mr. Karia submits that this Court, in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, also suo motu can delete that item giving liberty to his client to file appropriate application before appropriate forum. 9. As regards the concern of the appellant company, Mr. Karia, points out that initially he applied before the Company Law Board but as there was no succession certificate, his application was kept pending and thereafter it was dismissed for default during the pendency of this Appeal and thereafter an application for restoration is under process. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, we are in agreement with the learned counsel appearing for the parties that in a proceeding for grant of succession certificate, there was no scope of including immovable property in the schedule of the application and it appears that the learned trial Judge has allowed the application in terms of the schedule. We, therefore, in exercise of our power under Article 227 of the Constitution, delete the first item, namely, the immovable property which was described in the schedule of the application, which cannot form the subject matter of succession proceeding. 11. We make it clear that we have not otherwise gone into the title of the said property, and deletion of that item will not stand in the way of the appellant for seeking appropriate remedy before appropriate forum in accordance with law. 12. Regarding the share certificates of the appellant are concerned, we are of the view that although the Court below should have ordered to grant succession certificate in favour of the applicant as there is no other claimant either as heir of his father or as heir of his mother, there was also no scope of observation that the applicant was entitled for share from the order of BIFR i.e. reduction in equity shares of the deceased as indicated in the order. It is needless to mention that after being armed with the succession certificate, it is for the respondent to proceed before appropriate authority regarding value of the subject share. Since no dispute has been raised regarding the shares of Bank of Baroda, we, therefore, modify the succession certificate impugned in this Appeal by deleting the schedule of the immovable property, as indicated earlier, and also modifying the grant in respect of share of the appellant by deleting the observations regarding entitlement. 13. We also find substance in the contention of Mr. Buch that the observation that the appellant reserves his right to file a new application in case of any order passed by the appellate authority in future granting more shares to him was uncalled for, as by virtue of this succession certificate the respondent’s fate will be decided before appropriate forum. 14. We clarify that we have not gone into the entitlement of the respondent–claimant, which can be decided only before appropriate forum in accordance with law. 15. With the above observations, the Appeal is disposed of by modifying the grant of succession certificate. The trial Court is directed to modify the Succession Certificate in terms of this order. No order as to costs. 16. In view of disposal of the Appeal itself, the connected Civil Application has become infructuous and is disposed of accordingly.