R. N. Sahay. J.

This is an appeal under section 384 or the Indian Succession Act 1926 from toe order or Subordinate Judge-I Palamu dated 7.8.1992 whereby the application filed by the appellant under section 372 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of succession certificate in respect of debts and securities of late Ram Pati Devi wire of the appellant has been dismissed.

2. The appellant, in his petition impleaded Ram Kali Devi (sister of the deceased). Rambudhi Ram nephew of the deceased and the Branch Manager, State Bank of India.

3. The deceased was second wife of the appellant, late Ram Pati Devi was employed as teacher in the State Primary Girls School at Haldarnagar district of Palamau. She had deposited substantial amount in her general Provident fund bearing account no. 4328 She had also opened Saving bank account bearing A/C no 522 in the State Bank of India at Haidarnagar Branch She retired from service on 30.4.1987 and was living with the appellant. She died on 23.6.1989 due to certain ailments. The appellant performed her last rites according to the Hindu custom. The appellant claimed by virtue of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, be the only heir and legal representative of the deceased Rampati Devi. The appellant is thus entitled to get money deposited by Rampati Devi which is fully detailed in the schedule of the plaint.

4, Respondents no. 1 and 2 in their written statement stated that deceased Rampati Devi was not married with the appellant. She lived at her Naihar in village Bansdih. The appellant, therefore, is not entitled to get succession certificate. In her service book Rampati Devi (deceased) had given her address of her Naihar. She had deposited some amount in her name at Heidarnagar State Bank of India and in the ledger she had given the name of her sister Ramkali Devi and nephew Rambudbi Ram i.e. respondent nos. 1 and 2 As such the respondent nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to receive the money. In the Provident Fund Account Ramapati Devi (deceased) had nominated hell sister Ramkali Devi and nephew Rambudhi Ram In this way. the respondent nos. 1 and 2 are alone entitled for the amounts in the G.P. Fund and State Bank.

5. The learned Subordinate Judge I (District Deligate) Palamu has considered the oral and documentary evident and has given finding that Rampati Devi was married wife of the appellant. The Subordinate Judge, however, held that the appellant's marriage with Rampati Devi was void because the first wife of the appellant namely Jaimurti Devi who was alive at the time of marriage. The deceased in her; service book and in G.P.F. account and even in Bank account made the respondents as nominees to receive the amount deposited by her after her death. Hence the appellant was not entitled to get succession certificate.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the District Deligate has no jurisdiction to pronounce upon the validity of the marriage as only a court under the Hindu Marriage Act or a civil court has jurisdiction to pronounce upon validity of the marriage.

7. In smt. Sheet wati Vs. Smt Ram Nandani (A.I.R, 1981 Allahabad 42), the Deoki Nandan, J, of the Allahabad High Court held "A marriage though null and void for contravening any of the conditions prescribed by clauses (i), (iv) and (v) or section 5 has yet to be regarded as a subsisting fact and it cannot be said to be wholly nonest in law, or a nullity so long as it is not declared to be null and void by a decree of nullity of the District Court on a petition presented by either party thereto against the other party to the marriage. No third person can treat the marriage to be void or have it adjudicated to be null and void in any other suit or proceeding unless it has already been declared to be so by a decree of nullity or a District Court in accordance with the procedure prescribed by and under the Act : the only exception being the case where the aggrieved spouse of the first marriage on account of whose be