Compensation money payable under the Land Reforms Act is a debt and can be the subject-matter of a succession certificate. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to a proceeding for grant of a succession certificate. The evidence supported the finding that Jageshwari Kuer was Ganga Bishun's daughter and that Nepur Kuer was not his legally married wife.

K.Sahai, J.

1. One Ganga Bishun had mukarrari interest in village Belkhara tauzi No. 13244, under Arwal Police Station of Jehanabad Sub-division. It appears that, on the vesting of the zamindari interest, a sum of Rs. 545.13 was fixed as the compensation for Ganga Bishuns mukarrari1 interest. He died on the 29th November 1956.

2. Krishna Gopal (respondent No. 2), who is a son of Musammat Jageshwari (respondent No. 1), applied, under Sec.372 of the Indian Succession Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for grant of a succession certificate for the amount mentioned above on the allegation that he was the nearest heir of Ganga Bishun. Nepur Kuer (appellant No. 4) is the mother of the first three appellants. They filed applications, under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for being added as objectors to the succession certificate case. Their prayer was allowed by an order dated the 10th November, 1959. On the 13th May, 1961, Jageshwari Kuer (respondent No. 1) filed a petition to be added as a petitioner. That petition was allowed on that very date, and she was added as a petitioner.

The appellants case in the Court below was that Jageshwari Kuer was not the daughter of Ganga Bishun, and that the petitioners respondents were not entitled to the grant of a succession certificate in respect of Ganga Bishuns properties. On the other hand, the case of the respondents was that Nepur Kuer was a mistress and not a wife of Ganga Bishun, and that the other three appellants were his illegitimate sons.

3. The Court below held that Nepur Kuer was not married to Ganga Bishun, and that the other three appellants were his illegitimate sons. It further held that Jageshwari Kuer was the daughter, and Krishna Gopal was the daughters son, of Ganga Bishun. It also held that Jageshwari Kuer was the nearest heir of Ganga Bishun, and, accordingly, it ordered grant of a succession certificate to Jageshwari.

4. Appearing on behalf of the appellants, Mr. Shambhu Nath has raised several points. I propose to consider them one by one. The first point which he has urged is that the compensation money payable under the Land Reforms Act is not a debt, and hence it cannot form the subject-matter of a succession certificate. He has pointed out that, under Sec.372 (1) (f) of the Act, a certificate can be issued in respect of debts or securities. He has also pointed out that Sec.214 (2) of the Act reads:

"(2) The word debt in Sub-section (1) includes any debt except rent, revenue or profits payable in respect of land used for agricultural purposes."

5. Learned counsel has first argued that compensation is the form which an immovable property of Ganga Bishun has taken, and hence it is not a debt. This argument must be rejected. It is true that Ganga Bishun previously held immovable property; but that property does not exist any longer. Compensation is the amount fixed as payable to him in lieu of the immovable property which he held. This is an ascertained sum, and it cannot be denied that it is payable to Ganga Bishun or his heir or legal representative. The word "debt" has been defined in Whartons Law Lexicon as follows:

"a sum of money due from one person to another. An action of debt lay where a person claimed the recovery of a liquidated or certain sum of money affirmed to be due to him;"

It seems to me to be clear that the compensation money has all the attributes of a debt as mentioned in the definition of "debt" in the Lexicon.

6 Mr. Shambhu Nath has drawn my attention, in support of his argument, to three decisions. The first is the case of Mohammad Afzal V/s. Salahuddin Ahmad, AIR 1937 Pat 617. All that was held was that the claim made in that case was in the nature of rent, and hence it was not a debt Rent has been, excluded from the definition of debt in Sub-section (2) of Sec.214 of the Act itself. Hence, that decision is not at all relevant for the purposes of this case.

7. The second decision is the case of Ramu Singh V/s. Ag