1. The questions involved in this Revision are the following:

a) Whether the Court could dismiss the Original Petition for the issue of succession certificate on the ground that complicated questions of fact are involved?

b) Whether the Court could refuse to entertain the Original Petition for the issue of succession certificate on the ground that the petitioner is claiming under a Will?

c) Whether gratuity payable to the deceased is a debt in respect of which a succession certificate can be issued?

d) Whether the courts below were justified in dismissing the Succession O.P. on the ground that the petitioner claims to issue the succession certificate in respect of only part of the estate of the deceased.

2. Chandramathi, the next friend of the first respondent and sister of respondents 3 and 8 died a spinster. The petitioner alleged that Chandramathi borrowed a sum of `45,000/- from him for the construction of a house. Chandramathi was a staff nurse working in the Government Hospital, Nadapuram. She was residing in a rented house with her close friend, the first respondent. Chandramathi died in harness. The petitioner alleged that Chandramathi executed a Will bequeathing her properties. The Will is an unregistered Will. The Will was written in a diary kept by Chandramathi. It was attested by two witnesses. In the Will, there is a stipulation that on her death, the petitioner would be entitled to get Rs.45,000/- from her gratuity amount. The petitioner filed the Succession O.P. for the issue of a succession certificate for a sum of Rs.45,000/- out of the gratuity amount.

3. The first respondent stated in her counter statement that Chandramathi was living with her since 1985. Both of them were working in Government Hospital, Nadapuram from 1972 onwards. For the purpose of construction of a house, Chandramathi borrowed a sum of Rs.45,000/- from the petitioner. The amount was not repaid. After the death of Chandramathi, the first respondent found out the diary containing the Will and it was intimated to the petitioner.

4. Respondents 2 to 8 contended that respondents 3 and 8, being sisters of Chandramathi, are entitled to get the entire amount of gratuity. The Will was disputed by them. It was alleged that the Original Petition was filed by the petitioner in collusion with the first respondent. There was no necessity for Chandramathi to borrow any amount from the petitioner. Since complicated questions are involved and the genuineness of the Will is to be decided, the petitioner has to institute a civil suit before the competent civil court. A succession certificate can be issued only in the case of intestate succession.

5. Before the trial court, the petitioner was examined as PW1 and the two attesting witnesses to the Will were examined as PWs.2 and 3. Exts.A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the petitioner. The first respondent was examined as RW1 and the diaries of Chandramathi and her ration cards were marked as Exts.B1 to B5. No evidence was adduced by respondents 2 to 8.

6. The trial court dismissed the Succession O.P. on the following grounds: (1) Gratuity amount is not a debt and as such succession certificate cannot be granted in respect of the same. (2) Complicated questions regarding genuineness of the Will are involved in the case and those questions cannot be decided in a summary proceeding. (3) The petitioner claims only a portion of the amount out of the gratuity amount and therefore, a succession certificate cannot be granted in respect of the same.

7. On appeal by the petitioner, the learned District Judge disagreed with the findings on points 1 and 2 mentioned above. However, the Appellate Court confirmed the finding on point No.3 mentioned above and dismissed the appeal.

8. Both the courts below did not consider the genuineness or otherwise of the Will. The courts below also did not arrive at any finding as to whether Chandramathi had borrowed a sum of Rs.45,000/- from the petitioner.

9. The