The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of a succession certificate does not determine any question of title or decide what privilege belongs to the estate of the deceased, but merely enables a party to collect debts or securities belonging to the deceased.

PRADIP MOHANTY J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners have filed this revision challenging the order dated 10-9-2001 passed by the learned additional District Judge, Angul, in Misc. Appeal No. 8 of 2001, setting aside the order dated 1-3-2001 of the learned Civil judge (Sr. Divn.), Athamallik, in Succession misc. Case No. 1 of 2000 and also Demanding the case to the trial Court for determination as to whether the petitioner-wife alone in the Court below is entitled to get the succession certificate.

( 2 ) SHORN of unnecessary details, the brief facts of the case are as follows : the two petitioners in the present civil revision are the son and daughter and the opposite party is the wife of Late Srinibas pradhan respectively for grant of a succession certificate. The opposite party filed an application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), athamallik for grant of succession certificate to receive family pension, general-provident fund and dues payable to late Srinibas pradhan, alleged to be the deceased husband. In the said application, the opposite party has narrated that deceased Srinibas pradhan died on 5-7-1997 leaving behind her and the present petitioners as his legal heirs. The petitioners, son and daughter of said deceased Srinibas through his first wife, contested the case on the grounds inter alia that the opposite party was not the second wife of deceased Srinibas. Their further case is that they are the only legal heirs of deceased srinibas and Damayanti, the opposite party had never lived with Srinibas till 1987 and, therefore, Damayanti is not entitled to get the status of wife of deceased srinibas. Therefore, the petitioners, in the civil revision, only are entitled to get the benefit from the Postal Department after death of Srinibas and as such, the petition for succession certificate is liable to be rejected.

( 3 ) THE learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), athamallik, after taking into consideration the oral and the documentary evidence has come to the conclusion that the petitioner before him is the legally married wife of deceased srinibas. Accordingly, the trial Court allowed the petition and issued succession certificate in her favour for grant of family pension of deceased Srinibas along with her share in the G. P. F. amount, leave encashment and the arrear pay and allowances from the Postal Department. The Present petitioners being aggrieved by such order of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) filed Misc. Appeal No. 8 of 2001 before the learned Additional District Judge, angul. The learned Additional District Judge, angul, after due consideration of the materials on record, while confirming the findings of the learned Civil Judge that the opposite party is the legally married wife of deceased Srinibas, set aside the order passed by the learned Civil Judge and remanded the matter with a direction to determine whether the opposite party-wife alone is entitled to get the succession certificate to receive family pension or not. Before the learned trial Judge, in order to prove her case, the opposite party examined six witnesses including herself and proved 34 documents (Exts. 1 to 34) and the present petitioners examined five witnesses in their favour including petitioner no. 1 and proved two documents (Exts. A and B ).

( 4 ) MR. Ghose, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the courts below acted without jurisdiction in granting the succession certificate in favour of the opposite party. He further contended that the present petition for grant of succession certificate is of summary nature. Therefore, a decision on any point is not a bar in a subsequent case. His further contention is that the Courts below decided the case solely on the basis of the order passed in the maintenance case under Section 125, cr. P. C. and the findings of the criminal case are not binding in a civil proceeding. The question of valid m