JUDGMENT : NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J. 1. None appears on behalf of the appellant. None appears on behalf of defendant No. 1. Learned Advocate Mr. Vishrut Jani appears on behalf of defendant No. 2. 2. By way of the present First Appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge judgment and order passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge (SD), Surendranagar dated 21.07.2001 in Civil Misc. Application No. 12 of 1997. 3. On account of absence of learned Advocate for the appellant, this Court has perused the First Appeal, the impugned judgment and order as well as Records and Proceedings placed before this Court through paper-book. 4. The learned trial Court had framed 5 issues which are enumerated herein-below and whereas answers are also enumerated herein-below: “1. Whether the applicant proves that she is only surviving legal heir of late Motibhai Khetabhai? 2. Whether the applicant proves that the properties shown in the application were property of late Motibhai? 3. Whether the opponent proves that late Motibhai was not the owner of the disputed property? If yes, whether he proves that he has purchased the same from Jivuben Mansangbhai? 4. Whether the applicant is entitled to the succession certificate in respect of the disputed property? 5. What order? Answers 1. Affirmative. 2. Negative. 3. Affirmative. 4. As per final order.” 5. Upon perusal of the record as well as the impugned judgment, it appears that by way of filing Civil Misc. Application, the original applicant had requested for grant of succession certificate under the Indian Succession Act with regard to two immovable properties of one Motibhai Khetabhai, deceased. It was the contention on part of the applicant that Motibhai Khetabhai was her father, who died before 80 years at village Adalsar and whereas it appears that legal heirs of the said person had been mentioned at Para No. 2 of the application and whereas it was also averred that all other legal heirs had expired and the applicant was the only surviving legal heir of deceased Motibhai Khetabhai. The succession certificate was sought for two properties, i.e. a residential house situated at village Adalsar, Tal. Lakhtar and land bearing survey No. 265, admeasuring 7.10 acres and land bearing survey No. 275, admeasuring 4.20 acres at village Adalsar. It appears that notice of the application was published in local newspapers and whereas two persons, viz. The succession certificate was sought for two properties, i.e. a residential house situated at village Adalsar, Tal. Lakhtar and land bearing survey No. 265, admeasuring 7.10 acres and land bearing survey No. 275, admeasuring 4.20 acres at village Adalsar. It appears that notice of the application was published in local newspapers and whereas two persons, viz. one Laljibhai Ranchhodbhai Lakum and Narsingbhai Jagmalbhai had appeared before the learned trial Court and had opposed the application preferred by the original applicant. It appears that after considering the objections by the two objectors named hereinabove, learned Civil Court had rejected the application preferred by the applicant for grant of succession certificate and whereas being aggrieved by the same, the applicant has preferred the present First Appeal challenging the impugned decision. 6. Having perused the objections submitted by the objectors and also having perused the impugned decision, it appears that the properties for which succession certificate had been sought for by the applicant, neither stood in the name of the father of the applicant nor does it appear that the properties ever belonged to the father of the applicant. It appears that as far as the properties being land bearing survey Nos.265 and 275 as well as residential house, all three of them were owned by one Mansangbhai and whereas upon his demise, his widow Jivuben Mansangbhai, who was the sole legal heir of Mansangbhai, had inherited all the properties of her husband and whereas it would appear that Motibhai Khetabhai was not at all concerned with the said properties. Furthermore, it appears that survey No. 265 had been purchased by objector No. 1 Laljibhai Ranchhodbhai Lakum vide registered sale deed dated 16.09.1994 from Jivuben. The above facts being evident from the objections by objector No. 1. 7. On the other hand, insofar as objector No. 2 is concerned, he had mentioned in detail that the residential house situated at village Adalsar was of the ownership of Mansangbhai Motibhai and whereas possession certificate with regard to the said property in favour of Mansangbhai Motibhai was issued by Mamlatdar, Lakhtar on 31.03.1960 and whereas after Mansangbhai had died on 06.02.1976, the property had been inherited by his widow Jivuben and whereas it also appears that agricultural land bearing survey No. 275 had been purchased by Jivuben in partnership with objector No. 2 vide registered sale deed from one Shivabhai Merubhai Koli on 15.05.1973. It also appears that Mansangbhai, before his expiry, had executed Will dated 09.03.1970, whereby his movable and immovable properties were bequeathed to his wife Jivuben and whereas it appears that Jivuben had also executed will dated 16.09.1994, whereby she had bequeathed her share in land bearing survey No. 275 to objector No. 2. 8. The only question that arises for consideration of this Court being (I) whether there is any infirmity committed by the learned Civil Court while rejecting the application for grant of succession certificate? My answer to the same being in negative. 9. The reason for arriving at the conclusion as above being that upon perusal of the decision as well as Records and Proceedings, it is revealed that while the appellant was not successful in proving that the properties for which succession certificate had been sought for belonged to Motibhai Khetabhai, the opponents were successful in proving that the properties had not belonged to Motibhai Khetabhai and furthermore, it also appears that the opponents had also led evidence to show that the properties were in fact of the ownership of one Mansangbhai Motibhai and whereas after demise of the said person, his wife Jivuben had became owner of the properties in question and whereas through various modes, i.e. through registered sale deed as well as through Will, the opponents had became owners of the properties in question. Even otherwise, in the considered opinion of this Court, burden for proving that the properties were of the ownership of Motibhai Khetabhai was on the original applicant and only upon such burden being discharged by the applicant, would the onus shift upon the defendants to prove otherwise. In the instant case, the applicant had not led any evidence whatsoever to prove that the properties in question were of the ownership of Motibhai Khetabhai and that the applicant being the sole surviving legal heir of Motibhai Khetabhai, therefore, succession certificate should be issued in her favour. 10. In this view of the matter, since in the considered opinion of this Court, no infirmity whatsoever appears to have been committed by the learned trial Court while passing the impugned judgment and order and for the reasons noted hereinabove, in the considered opinion of this Court, the First Appeal fails and is hereby rejected. 11. Records and Proceedings be transmitted to the concerned trial Court.