1. The question raised for decision in this second appeal is, whether a certificate under Section 4 of the Succession Certificate Act is necessary before a decree can be passed directing the sale of mortgaged properties in a suit by the heirs of a mortgagee for the recovery of a debt by the sale of the property mortgaged, and not asking for any personal decree against the defendant. This Court and the High Courts of Calcutta and Bombay have held that no certificate is necessary and we see no reason to depart from the view taken by these Courts. See Palaniyandi Pillai v. Veerammal 29 M.k 77; Bisseswar Roy v. Durgadas Mehara 32 C.k 418; Nanchand Khemchand v. Yenawa 6 Bom. L.R. 583. It is urged that the Allahabad High Court has taken a different view. This is no doubt the fact, but we prefer to follow the decisions of the Court which are supported by the view taken by the Calcutta and Bombay High Courts.
2. We dismiss the second appeal with costs.