JUDGMENT : (Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.) Impugning the Order dated 24.02.2006 passed in S.A. O.P.No.5 of 2002, on the file of the Court of I Additional District Judge, Ongole, the unsuccessful petitioner carried the matter before this Court in this C.M.A. 2. The appellant herein was the petitioner. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein were the Respondents before the trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to hereinafter as they arrayed before the trial Court. 3. Heard Sri Satish Deshpandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri V.D.Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for Respondents. 4. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: a. Petitioner filed the petition under Sections 372 and 383 of Indian Succession Act stating that she is legally wedded wife of deceased/ P.C.Bhaktharaju seeking the following reliefs: (i) To issue Succession Certificate in her favour to withdraw the schedule amounts; (ii) To take appropriate action against Respondent Nos.1 to 3 for giving false evidence in O.P. No.176 of 2001; (iii) To revoke the Succession Certificate granted in favour of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in O.P.No.176 of 2001, dated 12.07.2001. b. Petitioner further stated that the deceased died on 12.11.1999 intestate, while working in Revenue Department. She further claims that she married him in 1989. She is entitled to terminal benefits of the deceased shown in the schedule. c. While so, Respondent Nos., 1 and 2 claiming to be brought up sons of the deceased filed O.P.No.176 of 2001 in District Court for Succession Certificate. Respondent No.3/ Sugunamma appeared before the Court in the said matter and reported no objection. d. Accordingly, the District Court granted Succession Certificate in favour of Respondent Nos.,1 and 2. e. Petitioner challenges that Exs.A.1 and A.2 are collusive affairs and are not binding on her. So, the Succession Certificate granted in O.P.No.176 of 2001 has to be revoked. f. It is further stated that the Service Register of the deceased shows one Deva Kumari as his wife and that she underwent Tubectomy, after two children and therefore, the deceased Bhaktharaju was granted family planning incentive by the Government, which is Ex.B.4. g. Petitioner further stated that the entries in Ex.B.4 Service Register are manipulated. They are not the statements of the deceased, but, the said endorsement has been brought into existence subsequent to his death. 5. g. Petitioner further stated that the entries in Ex.B.4 Service Register are manipulated. They are not the statements of the deceased, but, the said endorsement has been brought into existence subsequent to his death. 5. The case of the Respondents 1 and 2, is as follows: a. In counter, Respondent Nos., 1 and 2 contend that the petitioner is not the legally wedded wife of deceased and that one Deva Kumari is the wife of Bhaktharaju, who died subsequently and Respondents 1 and 2, who are the brother’s sons of the deceased were brought up by him as his sons. b. Respondents further contended that petitioner is their distant relative and she is the wife of one Karasala Salmon and she stayed with her husband at Singarayakonda. c. Respondents further stated that the proceedings in O.P.No.176 of 2001 are genuine and the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs. 6. Respondent No.3 also raised the contentions of Respondent Nos., 1 and 2, but she never asserted herself to be the wife of deceased Bhaktharaju. Respondent Nos., 4 and 5 contended that the wife of the deceased Bhaktharaju is one Deva Kumari and the petitioner is not entitled to the Succession Certificate. 7. Learned trial Judge, in the light of the rival pleadings, framed the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of Sri P.C.Bhaktharaju? 2. If not, whether the petitioner is the best person to give valid discharge to the debts due to the estate of the deceased? 3. Whether the succession certificate granted in O.P.No.176/2001 can be revoked in this application? 8. During the course of enquiry, petitioner herself was examined as P.W.1. One Budala James, who is the cousin of the deceased was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A.1 to A.14 were the documents marked. On behalf of Respondents, R.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.4 were the documents marked. On appreciation of the evidence on record, learned trial Judge dismissed the petition. 9. One Budala James, who is the cousin of the deceased was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A.1 to A.14 were the documents marked. On behalf of Respondents, R.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.4 were the documents marked. On appreciation of the evidence on record, learned trial Judge dismissed the petition. 9. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Order, the petitioner preferred the present appeal on the grounds that O.P.No.176 of 2001 itself is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties, who are the legal heirs of deceased Bhaktharaju, that Respondents 1 and 2 have no locus standi to file O.P.No.176 of 2001 for grant of succession certificate, that there is no evidence on record to show that Respondents 1 and 2 were brought up by the deceased as his sons, that the Respondents 1 and 2 though alleged that the petitioner married one Salmon, failed to prove the same. 10. Further, that Petitioner categorically denied her signature on the certificate produced by Respondents 1 and 2 that she married Salmon. Then, the burden is on Respondents 1 and 2 to prove the same, that the marriage register produced does not contain the official stamp and seal of the Pastor. In the Register, the age of Salmon was shown as 25 years and thereby he was two years younger than the petitioner. As such, the allegation that the petitioner married Salmon is not correct and this was done to show that the deceased was not the husband of the petitioner. In view of the findings of the trial Judge, Respondent No.3 has nothing to do with the family of the deceased Bhaktharaju. All the records showing the petitioner as the wife of the deceased Bhaktharaju were taken away by the respondents after the demise of Bhaktharaju. As R.W.1 admitted in his cross examination that he did not mention the particulars of relationship between him and the deceased and other relatives in the earlier O.P.No.176 of 2001. Thus, the petition filed by the respondents is not maintainable. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant in elaboration would submit that there is no evidence on record to show that Respondent Nos., 1 and 2 are the children of deceased Bhaktharaju and therefore, issuance of succession certificate to Respondent Nos.,1 and 2 in O.P.No.176 of 2001 is unsustainable in law. Thus, the petition filed by the respondents is not maintainable. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant in elaboration would submit that there is no evidence on record to show that Respondent Nos., 1 and 2 are the children of deceased Bhaktharaju and therefore, issuance of succession certificate to Respondent Nos.,1 and 2 in O.P.No.176 of 2001 is unsustainable in law. It is also contended that the petition was erroneously dismissed by the learned trial Judge without looking into the important aspect that the petitioner is the wife of deceased Bhaktharaju and that without impleading her as a respondent, Respondents 1 and 2 obtained succession certificate by playing fraud on the Court. 12. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned Order. It is also stated that in the present case, petitioner is seeking revocation of the succession certificate, which is not maintainable. It is also contended that if the Petitioner is aggrieved by the Order in O.P.No.176 of 2001, she has to file a petition in the very same O.P but not the present petition. Hence, prays for dismissal of the appeal. Point for Determination 13. Now the point that would emerge for determination in this appeal is: Whether the impugned Order dismissing the petition seeking revocation of the succession certificate on the point that the petitioner has to file a miscellaneous application to seek such revocation, but not in a separate original petition, is sustainable under law? 14. Needless to say, for issuance of succession certificate, the scope of enquiry is only to the extent of identifying the best person to give valid discharge to the debts due to the estate of the deceased. Succession certificate cannot confer absolute right and title over the schedule property on the petitioner, the other legal heirs of the deceased are also entitled to seek recovery of the amount. It is pertinent to say that the legal heirs of the deceased can seek for partition of the amounts received by the petitioner in case, after obtaining the succession certificate, the petitioner realizes any amount. 15. It is beneficial to extract Section 381 of the Indian Succession Act, which reads as under: “Section 381. It is pertinent to say that the legal heirs of the deceased can seek for partition of the amounts received by the petitioner in case, after obtaining the succession certificate, the petitioner realizes any amount. 15. It is beneficial to extract Section 381 of the Indian Succession Act, which reads as under: “Section 381. Effect of certificate.— Subject to the provisions of this Part, the certificate of the District Judge shall, with respect to the debts and securities specified therein, be conclusive as against the persons owing such debts or liable on such securities, and shall, notwithstanding any contravention of section 370, or other defect, afford full indemnity to all such persons as regards all payments made, or dealings had, in good faith in respect of such debts or securities to or with the person to whom the certificate was granted.” 16. The language employed in the provision referred to supra vividly explains the effect of the succession certificate. The record shows, the Service Register/Ex.B.4 reveals that the deceased was having a legally wedded wife namely Deva Kumari and two living issues. Nothing has been placed on record to show that the entries in the Service Register are manipulated. In general, since, the presumption is, the contents of the said register are true, unless it is rebutted by valid evidence. 17. Two issues to the deceased Bhaktharaju referred above are not the parties to the present petition. In the cross examination of P.W.1, it was elicited that the deceased Bhaktharaju and the petitioner are Christians. Though she stated that the marriage certificate is in her possession, she did not venture to file the same. In absence of any certificate of marriage, the alleged marriage of the petitioner with the deceased Bhaktharaju cannot be accepted. 18. At the next breath, P.W.1 stated that her marriage was not performed by a Pastor, but it was by exchange of garlands. According to her, some photographs were taken, but they have not seen the light of the day. Astonishingly, P.W.2 who claimed to be the cousin of Bhaktharaju deposed that the marriage of the petitioner with Bhaktharaju was performed in Ramalayam. Hence, the version of P.Ws.1 and 2 relating to the alleged marriage with Bhaktharaju is inconsistent and unreliable. According to her, some photographs were taken, but they have not seen the light of the day. Astonishingly, P.W.2 who claimed to be the cousin of Bhaktharaju deposed that the marriage of the petitioner with Bhaktharaju was performed in Ramalayam. Hence, the version of P.Ws.1 and 2 relating to the alleged marriage with Bhaktharaju is inconsistent and unreliable. As rightly held by the learned Trial Judge, the marriage, if any, as per the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is not valid since both are Christians. 19. Petitioner, in support of her contention, filed some documents viz., gas connection voucher/Ex.A.9, Telephone bill/Ex.A.8 and some Xerox copies of fixed deposit receipts/Exs.A.12 and 13. It is apt to say that in the documents filed by the petitioner, nowhere it is shown that deceased Bhaktharaju made any statement before the authorities that the petitioner is his wife. 20. The grounds for revocation of certificate under Section 383 of Indian Succession Act and grounds for revocation of probate and letters of administration under Sections 263 of Indian Succession Act, are analogous to each other. In Nalini Navin Bhagawati & Others v. Chawravadan M. Mehta, AIR 1997 SC 1055 in the context of an application filed for revocation of probate or letter of administration, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows; “7. But when the grant of probate or letter of administration is sought to be revoked, it is not clear what nomenclature would be ascribed to it and what procedure would be adopted for its disposal. Take for instance a situation when the suit is decreed ex parte. Order IX Rule 13 provides for making of an application to set aside the decree; on proof of certain grounds ex parte decree gets set aside. Similarly, when the suit was dismissed for default, under Order IX Rule 9 an application would be filed and on proof of the circumstances for absence, the order would be set aside and the suit would get restored. Similarly, when probate or letter of administration is granted and it is sought to be revoked, Section 263 provides for the grounds on the basis of which it would be revoked. When the grounds are sought to be proved, the question is whether such an application would be treated to be a suit? Similarly, when probate or letter of administration is granted and it is sought to be revoked, Section 263 provides for the grounds on the basis of which it would be revoked. When the grounds are sought to be proved, the question is whether such an application would be treated to be a suit? We are of the considered view that an application to revoke probate or letter of administration would be treated as miscellaneous application and may be disposed of on the fact-situation in an appropriate case either summarily or after recording evidence. The application to revoke the probate or letter of administration thus may be disposed of by the District Judge either summarily or in a given situation where it requires proof of the facts by adduction of evidence by the parties by recording such evidence as is adduced by the parties. The burden will be on the applicant to prove the facts to revoke the probate or letter of administration and the respondent who obtained probate or letter of administration has to disprove the contentions of the applicant. In that situation, based upon the given fact-situation, it will be for the court to dispose it of either summarily or after giving opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence and consideration thereof. Under these circumstances, it is not necessary that the application for revocation of the probate or letter of administration would be treated as a suit as contemplated under Section 295 of the Act. If the contention of Shri Puri merits acceptance, then any proceedings under the application to revoke the probate or letter of administration should be treated as a suit: the applicant cannot prove the Will and at the same time cannot contend that the Will was not validly executed. Therefore, it would be self-contradictory to adopt such a procedure. Accordingly, we are of the view that the procedure required under Section 295 need not be adopted for disposal of the application filed under Section 263 for revocation of the probate or the letter of administration. It would be treated as miscellaneous application and disposed of as indicated earlier according to the given fact-situation. In fact, the Bombay High Court came to consider the question, not directly on this issue but in an analogous situation in Narbheram Jivram Purohit v. Jevallabh Harjivan [(1933) 35 Bom LR 998 : AIR 1933 Bom 469]. It would be treated as miscellaneous application and disposed of as indicated earlier according to the given fact-situation. In fact, the Bombay High Court came to consider the question, not directly on this issue but in an analogous situation in Narbheram Jivram Purohit v. Jevallabh Harjivan [(1933) 35 Bom LR 998 : AIR 1933 Bom 469]. Therein, the learned Single Judge had held that the proper procedure for revocation of probate granted by the High Court is by way of a petition filed in the testamentary and intestate jurisdiction of the court, and not by way of suit in its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction. In other words, the court indicated that it need not be treated as a suit on the original side of the court but it could be disposed of as an application independent of the suit. Thus, we hold that the High Court was clearly in error in reaching the conclusion that it should be treated as a suit and disposed of under Section 295.” (emphasis supplied) 21. Similarly, a Co-ordinate Bench of the Bombay High Court in Harjit Singh v. Paramjitsingh, AIR Bom R 311 following the decision in Nalini Navin Bhagawati held that an application seeking revocation of a probate under Section 263 of the Act, must be treated as a miscellaneous application and not as suit. The same principle of law is applicable to the procedure under Section 383 of Indian Succession Act also. Therefore, this Court finds that the relief of revocation of succession certificate granted in O.P.No.176 of 2001, is not maintainable. 22. In view of the foregoing discussion and in the circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal and the same deserves dismissal. 23. In result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. As a sequel, pending interlocutory applications, if any, in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, shall also stand closed.