JUDGMENT & ORDER : This appeal under section 384 of the Indian Succession Act has been filed challenging the order dated 17-07-2007 in Misc (S) Case No.259/2003 passed by the learned District Judge, Silchar Cachar. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent who is the wife of late Samsur Uddin Barbhuiyan, an employee in the Regional Engineering College (R.E.C), Siclhar, who died on 17-06-2003, filed an application before the learned District Judge, Silchar, under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, praying for issuance of Succession Certificate in respect of the debt and securities left by her husband Late Samsur Uddin Barbhuiyan. The petition was resisted by the present appellants, who are the brothers and sisters of late Samsur Uddin Barbhuiyan, on the ground that they were also entitled to inherit the property left by Samsur Uddin Barbhuiyan and sought for issuance of succession certificate proportionately in favour of them along with the petitioner. Learned District Judge by order dated 19-12-2003 held that the respondent widow of late Samsur Uddin Barbhuiyan was entitled to Rs.50,000/- as deferred (Maharana) and 1/4th share out of rest of debt and securities. The learned District Judge also directed for issuance of succession certificate in favour of the present appellant, as per their entitlement under the personal law. Subsequently, the respondent filed a petition praying for releasing Rs.50000/- which was alloted to her as Maharana, from the item No.1 of the schedule of the petition for succession certificate and the same was allowed by the learned trial court by order dated 27-05-2004. The appellant challenged the order dated 27-05-2004 before this Court alleging, that the order dated 27-05-2004 was passed without hearing the appellants. This Court by order dated 20-03-2007 passed in Intest Case No.11/2004, set aside the order dated 27-05-2004 and remitted the case with direction to decide the matter afresh, after giving opportunity of being heard to the appellants. The learned District Judge as per the direction of this Court heard both sides and by order dated 17-07-2017 recalled the order dated 27-05-2004. Learned District Judge also directed that Succession Certificate be issued as per order dated 19-12-2003, which was still in force for having not been challenged or set aside. 3. Aggrieved by the order dated 17-07-2007, the appellants have filed this appeal. 4. Learned District Judge also directed that Succession Certificate be issued as per order dated 19-12-2003, which was still in force for having not been challenged or set aside. 3. Aggrieved by the order dated 17-07-2007, the appellants have filed this appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned District Judge erroneously granted Rs.80,000/- to the respondent of which Rs.50,000/- was towards Maharana, as neither the question of Maharana was involved in the succession case nor any evidence was led to that effect and therefore, prayed for setting aside the order dated 17-07-2007. Learned counsel also argued for issuing direction to issue succession certificate to the respondent and the appellants in equal share. 5. The basic reason for challenge against the order dated 17-07-2007 is that Rs.50,000/- ought not to have been given to the respondent as deferred Maharana. From the order dated 19-12-2003, it appears that the learned Tribunal granted Rs.50,000/- out of the estate of the deceased to the respondent as Maharana, which according to respondent remained unpaid, and in respect of rest of the debt and securities, succession certificates were directed to be issued in favour of the appellants as well as the respondent as per their entitlement under the personal law. This order dated 19-12-2003, was never challenged and as such, it attained finality. After about 5 months of the order dated 19-12-2003 on a petition of the respondent, the learned District Judge only allowed the respondent to take Rs.50,000/-, as was granted by order dated 19-12-2003 from a particular item in the schedule of the petition for succession certificate and therefore, by the said order dated 27-05-2004, no alteration or change was made in the order dated 19-12-2003, inasmuch as, the entitlement of the parties as decided by the order dated 19-12-2006 remained as it is. Thereafter, the appellants challenged the order dated 27-05-2004 and ultimately the learned District Judge has recalled the said order dated 27-05-2004 and consequently, order dated 19-12-2003, whereby direction was given for issuance of succession certificate as per the entitlement of the parties, remained in force as it was never challenged. In that view of the matter, the present appeal does not appear to have any merit as the grievance of the appellants was against the order dated 27-05-2004 which was already recalled by the learned District Judge. In that view of the matter, the present appeal does not appear to have any merit as the grievance of the appellants was against the order dated 27-05-2004 which was already recalled by the learned District Judge. So far the order dated 19-12-2003 is concerned, as it appears from the record that order was never challenged. 6. Looking from another angle, the order dated 19-12-2003 makes it appear that Rs.50,000/- was allotted to the respondent as Maharana (deferred dower) and rest of the debt and securities were distributed amongst all the legal heirs i.e. the appellant and respondent and succession certificates were directed to be issued accordingly. 7. The properties of a deceased Muslim devolves upon the legatees and heirs. Before claiming their share by the legatees or the heirs, four primary liabilities are required to be met, out of the estate of the deceased and only after meeting such primary liabilities, if any residue remains, the heirs or legatees shall get their due share from such residues. Following are the said primary liabilities which are required to be met, out of the estate of the deceased. Firstly funeral expense of the deceased and the death bed charges of the deceased, which includes fees of medical attendance, boarding, lodging etc of the deceased before the death. Secondly, if the deceased has left a will and a probate or letters of administration have been obtained in respect of the property of the deceased, cost of such proceeding be paid out of the property of the deceased. Thirdly, the primary liability to be met out of the estate of the deceased is unpaid wages for services rendered to the deceased during the last 3 (three) months of his life by any domestic servant or attendant. Fourthly the unpaid debt of the deceased, if any. 8. No doubt the right to property by inheritance obviously devolves upon the legal heirs immediately on death of the deceased but the legal heirs or the legatees are under obligation to meet the above primary liabilities of the deceased, out of the property of the deceased, and only after meeting such primary liabilities, whatever remain, as residue, will be distributed amongst the legal heirs or legatees as per their entitlement. It is pertinent to mention that the unpaid Maher also falls in the category of debt and therefore, payment of such unpaid Maher also falls within the primary liability of the legal heirs, before the distribution of the property of the deceased amongst them. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that Maher could not be paid from their share, carries no force, as payment of deferred Maher, which falls in the category of debt is one of the primary liability which is to be met from the property of the deceased. In this view of the matter, the learned Trial court while granting succession certificate in favour of the legal heirs as per their entitlement, rightly allowed the Maharana to be paid in favour of the respondent who was entitled to the same and has not committed any error, as it was one of the primary liability of the appellants also, to pay the Maher out of the estate of the deceased. 9. In any view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this appeal for the reason, - firstly, the order dated 09-12-2003 was never challenged and therefore, it remained in force. Secondly, when the grievance of the appellants were basically against the order dated 27-05-2004 which has already been recalled by order dated 07-07-2007, there could not be any grievance of the appellants for preferring the instant appeal. 10. In view of what has been discussed herein above, the appeal is found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. 11. Send back the LCR.