1. Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Sr. counsel for the appellant. I have also heard Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel representing the respondent.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 03-09-2007 passed by the court of District Judge, Dibrugarh in Misc. (S.C.) Case No. 186/2003 rejecting the objection filed by the appellant opposing the grant of Succession Certificate in favour of the respondent.

3. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the deceased daughter of the appellant, viz. Late Gouri Das was an employee under the Department of Telecom who died in harness on 15-11-1997. At the time of her premature death, Gouri Das had left behind valuable securities and immovable properties. After the death of Gouri Das, her husband, i.e. the respondent had filed a petition under Section 371/372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 registered as Misc. Succession Case No 186/2003, praying for grant of Succession Certificate in his favour in respect of the debts and securities left behind his deceased wife. It further appears from the record that general succession notices were issued in the aforesaid proceeding but since none had appeared to file objection, the matter proceeded ex-parte. However, before the Succession Certificate could be granted in favour of the respondent, the appellant had appeared and filed an application under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 praying for revocation of Succession Certificate. By the impugned Judgment and Order dated 03-09-2007, the learned District Judge, Dibrugarh had rejected the objection filed by the present appellant by holding that she was not entitled to receive the Debts and Securities during the life time of the husband. Accordingly, by the impugned order dated 03-09-2007 direction was issued to grant Succession Certificate in favour of the respondent. Hence, this appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

4. The case of the appellant, as projected through the pleadings, is that her daughter had nominated the appellant in the service book for the Death-cum-Retirement benefits and also in respect of the Postal Endowment Assurance Policy No. AM/5564 T/F which are the self acquired properties of late Gouri Das. It is also the case of the appellant that although her daughter was married to the respondent, yet, he did not take care of his wife, as a result of which, Gouri Das had to leave her matrimonial home and continued to live with the appellant until her death. Since the respondent did not look after his wife, hence, according to the appellant, he is not entitled to the self acquired properties left behind by his deceased wife.

5. Mr. S. Dutta, learned Sr. counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a widow who does not have any source of income of her own and therefore, if the respondent, who did not discharge his duties and responsibilities towards his deceased wife, is allowed to appropriate the entire amount then the same would not only cause injury to the rights and interests of the appellant but the same would also lead to serious miscarriage of justice. Under the circumstances a prayer has been made to set aside the judgment and order dated 03-09-2007. Mr. Dutta has, however, invited the notice of this court to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Omprakash & Ors. Vs. Radhacharan & Ors. reported in (2009) 15 SCC 66 to submit that by interpreting Sections 15 (1) and (2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the Apex court has held that although the law is silent with regard to the self acquired property of the women, however, in view of the provision contained in Section 15 (2), there is no distinction between the self acquired property and the property which a women had inherited. In view of the above, submits Mr. Dutta in all fairness, the appellant may not be entitled to appropriate the amount due to her daughter under the securities and debts in question. The learned senior counsel ha