ORDER : The applicant in this civil revision under Section 384(3) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 14.9.2021 (Annexure R/1) passed by District Judge, Bastar in Misc. Civil Appeal No.04/2021 whereby his appeal was dismissed upholding the order dated 3.2.2020 of the First Civil Judge, Class-1, Jagdalpur in Succession Case No.08/2019 by which the application of respondents No. 1 to 3 under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act was allowed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 to 3/applicants filed an application under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 before the trial court for issuing succession certificate in favour of respondent No.1/applicant for receiving her share of deposited amount in the bank account in the name of Late S.P. Mandal who is her husband and father of respondents No. 2 & 3 and the present applicant. Late S.P. Mandal had deposited Rs.8 lacs in his bank account in State Bank of India, Farmers Branch, Dharampura Road, Jagdalpur and which increased to Rs.12,25,675/- on the date of maturity i.e. 26.12.2020. He had not nominated anyone for receiving the said amount and died on 28.12.2017 leaving behind his wife, two sons and a daughter. The applicant in his written statement contested the claim of the respondents No. 1 to 3 saying that he being legal heir of the deceased also has right in the said deposited amount. However, the learned trial Court taking into consideration the overall evidence on record allowed the application of respondents No. 1 to 3 and held that the applicant herein was ex-parte during trial, hence he is not entitled for his share vide order dated 3.2.2020 (Annexure R/2) and considering the fact that respondents No. 2 & 3 have relinquished their share in favour of respondent No.1, directed for issuance of succession certificate in her favour. The applicant thereafter preferred an appeal against the said order, however, by the impugned order dated 14.9.2021 learned District Judge, Jagdalpur dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the trial Court. Hence this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned orders passed by both the learned Courts being illegal and perverse are liable to be set aside. Hence this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned orders passed by both the learned Courts being illegal and perverse are liable to be set aside. The applicant is a Hindu and is governed by the laws of Hindu Succession Act, therefore, he being son of Late S.P. Mandal is entitled to his share of the deposited amount under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act which deals with general rules for succession in the case of males. Though it is an admitted position that the applicant is the son of the deceased but even then he is denied his legitimate share in the deposited amount of the deceased. The respondents have stated that the applicant is working in NMDC, Kirdul and is earning his own income but it does not restrict the applicant from asking for his fair share. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3 strongly opposes the prayer of the applicant and submits that the applicant is residing separately along with his family and has kept all the sale proceeds received after alienating the property in the name of his father. He is working in NMDC and is not taking care of his mother. Furthermore, after filing the written statement, he remained ex-parte and did not submit any documentary or oral evidence in support of his case. Therefore, both the Courts having thoroughly examined the overall evidence on record came to the conclusion that the applicant has defrauded the respondents by taking the whole sale proceeds of the land of his father. Moreover, the proceedings under Section 372 of the Act are summary in nature and rights of the parties are not determined in such proceedings. The question of title has to be decided by the competent civil Court and not under the present proceedings. Hence, the instant revision being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is an admitted position in this case that the petitioner is son of Late S.P. Mandal, respondent No.1 is wife of Late S.P. Mandal and respondents No. 2 & 3 are children of Late S.P. Mandal. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is an admitted position in this case that the petitioner is son of Late S.P. Mandal, respondent No.1 is wife of Late S.P. Mandal and respondents No. 2 & 3 are children of Late S.P. Mandal. Respondents No. 1 to 3 filed an application for getting succession certificate before the learned Civil Judge, Class-I, Jagdalpur who vide order dated 3.2.2020 allowed the said application and held respondents No. 1 to 3 entitled for issuance of succession certificate for receiving the amount of Late S.P. Mandal deposited in the respondent-Bank. However, before the learned trial Court, respondents No.2 & 3 relinquished their share in favour of their mother respondent No.1 and accordingly, learned trial Court ordered for issuance of succession certificate in favour of respondent No.1 for receiving the amount of Rs.10,25,139/- with interest if any accrued thereon, of Late S.P. Mandal deposited in the respondent-Bank. The appeal filed by the applicant herein challenging the said order was dismissed by learned District Judge, Bastar by the impugned order dated 14.9.2021 upholding the order of the trial Court. 7. From perusal of orders of both the Courts, it is clear that after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record the learned trial Court found that the applicant herein has not adduced any evidence in support of his case and remained ex-parte and since no other person has raised any objection, in such a situation respondents No. 1 to 3 are held legal heirs of Late S.P. Mandal. Learned appellate Court having gone through the material available on record found that the applicant fraudulently sold the land of Late S.P. Mandal and kept all the sale proceeds with him and further that he is also working in NMDC, Kirandul. Therefore, though he is son of Late S.P. Mandal and has equal share in the self-acquired property of his father like respondents No. 1 to 3 but in the face of evidence and circumstances, there is no need to interfere with the order of learned trial Court. 8. There is no denying the fact that the applicant herein is son of Late S.P. Mandal. Learned trial Court decided the case according to Hindu Succession Act. 8. There is no denying the fact that the applicant herein is son of Late S.P. Mandal. Learned trial Court decided the case according to Hindu Succession Act. As per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, the applicant being son of Late S.P. Mandal is also entitled for equal share in the amount deposited in the name of the deceased in the respondent-Bank like other legal heirs of the deceased. As regards the fact that the applicant fraudulently sold the land of Late S.P. Mandal and kept all the sale proceeds with him, the respondents No. 1 to 3, if so desire, can initiate separate legal proceedings against him in this regard. In the succession case, the Court has to decide the limited issue as to who is legal heir of the deceased and their entitlement of the share as per the Hindu Succession Act. However, both the Courts did not consider this legal position while deciding the succession case and despite recording a finding that the applicant being son of the deceased is his legal heir, held him disentitled on the ground that he did not file any documents or adduce any evidence in support of his case and that he fraudulently sold the land of the deceased and kept all the sale proceeds with him. Though before the learned trial Court, respondents No. 2 and 3 relinquished their share in favour of respondent No.1 but the applicant herein never intended to relinquish his share in the deposited amount. Thus, the impugned order being not legally sustainable is liable to be modified to the extent that the applicant herein is also entitled for 1/4th share in the deposited amount of his deceased father. 9. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, the applicant who is son of Late S.P. Mandal is also held entitled for 1/4th share like respondents No. 1 to 3 in the amount deposited in the name of Late S.P. Mandal in the respondent-Bank. Hence a succession certificate to this effect be issued in favour of the applicant. The civil revision stands allowed with modification in the impugned order to the above extent.