S.C. Pratap, J.
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 9th March, 1982 passed by the learned trial Judge rejecting Miscellaneous Application No. 32 of 1979 filed on Original Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 1966.
2. The petitioner herein had filed Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 1966 for grant of succession certificate in respect of debts and securities of her deceased husband Premchand. This was under section 372 of the Indian Succession Act. On that petition, the following order was passed by the Court on 27th January, 1967 :---
'Succession certificate be issued in the name of the applicant on furnishing security to the extent of shares of minors on payment of Court fees. Costs to come out of the estates of the deceased.'
3. Subsequently, in the year 1979, the petitioner filed Miscellaneous Application No. 32 of 1979 stating, inter alia, that all those who were minors at the time of the 1966 application supra had then become majors. It was further stated that none of the opponents to the said application (who are respondents Nos. 1 to 4 to the present petition) had any objection to the grant of succession certificate in the name of the petitioner herein in respect of securities as prayed for. It was further stated that in fact opponents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 had also filed affidavit in support of the petitioner's above application. Request was ultimately made for issue of succession certificate. The learned trial Judge, by the impugned order of 9th March, 1982, dismissed this application. Hence, this petition.
4. Mr. C.H. Pursnani, learned Counsel for the petitioner, challenges the legality of the impugned order. Mr. A.J. Bijlani for all the contesting respondents Nos. 1 to 4 also is not in a position to support the impugned order of the trial Court. Indeed, as before the trial Court, here also all the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 support the petitioner's prayer. Going through the impugned order as also the application filed in the year 1979 by the petitioner, I feel this to be a just, fit and proper case where succession certificate should be issued in the name of the petitioner herein as prayed for. It is true that in the year 1967, condition of furnishing security was imposed to the extent of the shares of the minors, but that was because the persons concerned were then minors. Unfortunately, the petitioner could not furnish security and consequently, succession certificate could not be issued. With lapse of time and of which there is now no dispute, all the minors have attained majority. There is also no dispute that all the respondents support the present petition. There is also no dispute that all the respondents in fact want a succession certificate to be issued in favour of the petitioner. If this is the position, the condition of furnishing security to the extent of the shares of the minors has no effective meaning left. The said condition becomes infructuous, as the minors have attained majority and as majors they are fully supporting the grant of succession certificate in favour of the present petitioner.
5. In this view of the matter, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 9th March, 1982 passed by the trial Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 32 of 1979 is set aside and quashed. The said application is granted. The condition in the 1967 order passed below application Exhibit 1 in Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 1966 for'....furnishing security to the extent of shares of minors' is deleted. Succession certificate will now be issued in favour of the petitioner herein without any such security.
6. Rule on this petition is made absolute. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to costs of this petition.