In summary proceedings for a succession certificate, the burden of proof lies on the objector to establish their claim prima facie.

V. K. Mehrotra, J.—One Achhar Dass was an employee of the Himachal Pradesh Tourism Department. He died on April 29, 1979. A sum of Rs. 3,130 stood to his credit in his provident fund account No. HGA 6587. A sum of Rs. 3,408 became payable to his family or nominees as death-cum-retirement gratuity on his death. The State Government also sanctioned payment of an ex-gratia grant of Rs. 5,000 to him.

2. Sarju Devi as the widow of Achhar Dass together with their sons Sant Ram, Mani Ram and daughters Shakuntala, Nirmala and Hima filed a petition (registered as Case No. 7/2 of 1979) for the grant of succession certificate in respect of the above amounts on November 29, 1979.

3. After notice was issued to the general public on the application aforesaid, Smt Shanti Devi filed objections. In it, she claimed that she was the widow of Achhar Dass and had two children from him, namely, a son Ashok Kumar and a daughter Asha Rani. She further claimed that it was she alone alongwith her children from Achhar Dass, who was entitled to succeed to the amount of provident fund and other amounts payable upon the death of Achhar Dass.

4. The petition came to be heard by the learned Senior Sub-Judge (with delegated powers of District Judge), Solan and was decided on May 14, 1982 The learned Judge held that out of the petitioners, namely, Sarju Devi and her children from the deceased, only the two daughters, namely, Shakuntla and Nirmala were competent to receive the amount of death-cum-retirement gratuity. All the petitioners were, however, held entitled to the grant of succession certificate in respect of the amount of provident fund. The application for grant of certificate in relation to the amount of ex-gratia grant was, however, dismissed. The issuance of succession certificate in respect of the provident fund amount was made conditional upon this persons entitled to receive the amount furnishing an indemnity bond in the sum pf Rs. 4,0U0 and a bond with one surety for the same amount. Similarly, the persons found entitled to receive the amount of death-cum-retirement gratuity were also required to furnish bond for a sum of Rs 4,000 with one surety, Aggrieved Smt. Shanti Devi and her children Ashok Kumar and Asha Rani filed the present appeal under section 384 of the Indian Succession Act (briefly the Act).

5. The fact that Smt. Sarju Devi was the legally wedded wife of Achhar Dass and that Sant Ram and Mani Ram were the sons while Shakuntala, Nirmala and Hima were the daughters of Smt Sarju Devi from him has not been disputed on behalf of Shanti Devi and her children. What was pleaded on their behalf was that Shanti Devi was also a legally wedded wife of Achhar Dass having been married to him at Delhi before the commencement of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and that the two children were born out of that wed-lock. Ashok Kumar was the sole nominee of Achhar Dass in the provident fund account. Also, that Shanti Devi, Ashok Kumar and Asha Rani had also been mentioned as his nominees by Achhar Dass in respect of death-cum-retirement gratuity alongwith Shakuntala and Nir mala the daughters from Sarju Devi by the deceased. As such, the succession certificate could be issued only in favour of Ashok Kumar in respect of the amount of provident fund while in respect of the amount of death cum-retirement gratuity it can be issued in favour of Shakuntala and Nirmala alongwith Ashok Kumar, Asha Rani and herself, that is, the three objectors.

6. The fact that Shanti Devi was also the legally wedded wife of Achhar Dass was seriously disputed on behalf of Sarju Devi and the other applicants for the grant of succession certificate. Parties, therefore, led evidence on this aspect as well. The learned Senior Sub Judge, on consideration of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the marriage of Shanti Devi with Achhar Dass was not proved. If Achhar Dass had been living with Shanti Devi in adultery, it would not make the marriage valid. Further, even if it was p