ORDER : The above Civil Revision petition is filed challenging the Common Judgment passed by the learned District Judge of the Nilgiris at Ootacamund dated 14.10.2004 in C.M.A.Nos.8 and 44 of 2004 confirming the orders of the learned Subordinate Judge of the Nilgiris at Ootacamund, in O.P.Nos.21 and 22 of 1997 dated 02.12.2003, respectively. 2. The respondents 4 to 10 in the Original Petition are the revision petitioners before this Court. The deceased 1st respondent is the petitioner in the Original Petition No.21 of 1997 and the 2nd respondent is the 1st respondent in the Original Petition and the 3rd respondent is the legal representative of the deceased 1st respondent. 3. The facts in brief are as follows : The deceased 1st respondent herein had filed O.P.No.21 of 1997 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ootacamund, under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act praying for grant of Succession Certificate in his favour empowering him to collect the assets, Bank deposits, Securities, Pension, etc., of his deceased wife namely, Ex-Captain P.M. Lilly. 4. It was the case of the 1st respondent that he had engaged the services of the 2nd respondent to look after his wife as he was constantly away at Bombay, Bangalore, etc., on account of his business. Taking advantage of proximity and the weakness of the said Lilly, the 2nd respondent managed to obtain documents in her favour in respect of properties of the his wife Lilly. The said Lilly died on 25.08.1991 and the 1st respondent being her only legal heir was entitled to succeed to all her assets. The deceased Lilly had nominated him to receive money from the Central Bank of India and Lakshmi Srinivas Savings and Investments, etc., 5. The 2nd respondent herein had filed O.P.No.22 of 1997 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Ootacamund, praying for grant of Letters of Administration with a Will dated 23.08.1991 of Late P.M. Lilly. It was the case of the 2nd respondent that prior to the death of P.M. Lilly, who is none other than the sister of the 2nd respondent and the petitioners herein, she had executed a Will in favour of the 2nd respondent. The learned Subordinate Judge, Ootacamund, took up both these petitions and by a Common Order dated 02.12.2003 allowed O.P.No.21 of 1997 and dismissed O.P.No.22 of 1997. The learned Subordinate Judge, Ootacamund, took up both these petitions and by a Common Order dated 02.12.2003 allowed O.P.No.21 of 1997 and dismissed O.P.No.22 of 1997. Aggrieved by the Orders in O.P.No.21 of 1997, the revision petitioners had filed C.M.A.No.8 of 2004 and aggrieved by the orders in O.P.No.22 of 1997, the 2nd respondent had filed C.M.A.No.44 of 2004. 6. By order dated 14.10.2004, both the appeals were dismissed. It is against the orders in C.M.A.No.8 of 2004, the revision petitioners are before this Court. 7. Mr. Kingston Jerold, who appeared on behalf of the revision petitioners, would challenge the order impugned on the following grounds : (a) The deceased Lilly remained a Christian and therefore, the 1st respondent, who is the Muslim, cannot claim any right or title or interest over her properties. (b) The 1st respondent has not entered into the witness box to give evidence and only his son has stepped in as a witness. (c) The Nikah Certificate which was produced as Ex.B.12 is false as the conversion from Christianity was not proved in the manner known to law. The deceased Lilly was born, brought up and died as Christian. (d) The Succession Certificate was sought for only with reference to the movables, however, the Courts below have declared him as an absolute owner of the immovable properties as well. 8. The learned counsel would draw the attention of this Court to the evidence of P.W.1, wherein during the cross examination, he would admit that P.M. Lilly was cremated at the Holy Mary Church, Ootacamund and that Lilly had converted into Islam for which no documents were filed. He would also point out the admission of P.W.1 in his cross examination that when a person converts into Islam, there are certain rituals which have to be followed and that such a conversion can be taken only in the Mosque. He would further draw the attention of this Court to the evidence of D.W.3, wherein he has narrated in detail about the death of the said Lilly and how she continued to live as Christian. He would also draw my attention to the observation of the Court below that in case, a person converts from Christianity to Islam, she would have to undergo the Islamic rituals for getting converted. He would also draw my attention to the observation of the Court below that in case, a person converts from Christianity to Islam, she would have to undergo the Islamic rituals for getting converted. He would further argue that the findings of the Court below that the revision petitioners had not proved the reconversion was flawed, particularly, when the petitioners have pleaded that the deceased continued to be a Christian till her death. He would argue that this approach of the Courts below has vitiated the entire Judgment. Therefore, he would argue that the 2nd respondent has colluded with the 1st respondent as she wanted to retain the immovable properties allegedly bequeathed to her. To prove the collusion between the parties, he would draw my attention to the evidence of the 2nd respondent Elizabeth Mary, wherein she would admit that the deceased Lilly was the wife of Dawood, the 1st respondent herein, and that the revision petitioners had not accepted the said Dawood as their brother-in-law. The Will put forward by the 2nd respondent was also not believed by the revision petitioners. He would argue that when the petitioner has not proved conversion of Lilly into Islam, at the first instance, he is not entitled to the relief. As regards the claim of the 2nd respondent, the revision petitioners would submit that she has not proved the Will in the manner known to law. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent would argue that the deceased Lilly had converted into Islam and this fact has also been admitted by the respondents 2 to 4 in the counter statement at Paragraph 3, in which, they have stated that the deceased Lilly used to continue to visit the Parish Priest of St.Mary's Church, which is evident from the declaration dated 29.06.1991 made by the deceased Lilly to the Parish Priest of St. Mary's Church, Ooty. She would argue that the contention of the revision petitioners was that Lilly had reconverted. This reconversion was allowed two months prior to the death. She would also draw my attention to Ex.B.11-Pension Payment Order of the deceased P.M. Lilly and Ex.B.16-Burial Ground Certificate. In this document, the said P.M. Lilly has described the 1st respondent as her husband and she had also nominated him for the family pension. This reconversion was allowed two months prior to the death. She would also draw my attention to Ex.B.11-Pension Payment Order of the deceased P.M. Lilly and Ex.B.16-Burial Ground Certificate. In this document, the said P.M. Lilly has described the 1st respondent as her husband and she had also nominated him for the family pension. Ex.B.15 is the letter dated 09.07.1991 addressed by the deceased Lilly to the Manager, Central Bank of India, Ootacamund Branch, wherein she has described herself as the wife of Mr.S. Dawood (the 1st respondent herein) and nominated him as her next of kin. The said letter has been signed by the deceased in the presence of Joint Director of Health Services, The Nilgiris. These documents have been signed by the deceased herself which clearly shows that the deceased had acknowledged the fact that she was the wife of the 1st respondent and further, she had nominated him as her next of kin in respect of her properties and this indicates that the said Lilly wanted only her husband to enjoy her properties. 10. Heard Mr. Kingston Jerold, Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Ms. Shloka for Mr. Srinath Sridevan, counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 and perused the material on record. 11. The revision petitioners have challenged the order mainly on the ground that the deceased Lilly had not converted to Islam and there is no document to prove the same. It is seen from Ex.B.11 and Ex.B.15, both of which have been signed by the deceased Lilly that she had announced to the World that she is the wife of the 1st respondent and that Dawood is the only person entitled to enjoy her properties. The revision petitioners have not let in any evidence whatsoever to show that the deceased Lilly has reconverted to Christianity just prior to her death, particularly, when the counter statement filed by the 3rd respondent would state that the said Lilly had converted into Christianity just prior to her death and this was denied by the 1st respondent. This clearly indicates that the deceased had indeed converted to Islam. It is also seen from Ex.B.2 that the 1st respondent has been described as the husband of the deceased Lilly. Ex.Bs.1 & 11 are the Nomination Letters and Pension Book respectively signed by the said Lilly herself nominating the 1st respondent as her nominee. This clearly indicates that the deceased had indeed converted to Islam. It is also seen from Ex.B.2 that the 1st respondent has been described as the husband of the deceased Lilly. Ex.Bs.1 & 11 are the Nomination Letters and Pension Book respectively signed by the said Lilly herself nominating the 1st respondent as her nominee. Ex.B.12 is the Marriage Certificate of the 1st respondent of the deceased Lilly. While passing the Judgment, the Courts below have considered the evidence both oral and documentary in great detail. I find no infirmity in the order of the learned District Judge of the Nilgiris at Ootacamund, in C.M.A.No.8 of 2004 14.10.2004. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.