ORDER : Shrimati Rajjoo filed an application under section 372 of the Indian Succession Act of 1925 praying for a succession certificate in respect of Ms. 1315/12/- at the credit of Girja Dutt pandey, a peon in the Hallway Department as his provident fund. Girja Dutt pandey retired from service on 27th May, 1954 but before he could withdraw the amount he died on 29th October, 1954. The petitioner claimed herself to be the sister of Girja Dutt Pandey. Three other persons laid claim to the same amount. Radhey Shiam and Radha Krishna Mated that they were the sister's sons of Girja Dutt Pandey. They also alleged that Girja Dutt Pandey Bad made an oral will in their favour and in favour or Ram Kishore and Ram Swarup. It is further pleaded that Shrimati Rajjoo had executed a deed of relinquishment in favour of her sister's song. Nageshwar also laid claim to the amount as descendant from a common ancestor Daya Ram. The parties proceeded to trial on the basis of nine issues. The learned Munsif was finally of the opinion that Shrimati Rajjoo Devi was entitled to the amount in dispute. Against that order, two appeals were preferred before the District Judge, Unnao. Radhey Shiam and Radha Krishna preferred Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1959 and Nageshwar preferred Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1959.

Both the appeals were dealt with together. By judgment dated 27th February, 1961 the learned District Judge, Unnao allowed both the appeals holding that no succession certificate could be granted in respect of provident fund money. He relied merely on a decision reported in Assam Bengal Rly. v. Atul Chandra Sen, AIR 1937 Cal 314. Against that judgment Shrimati Rajjoo Devi has filed two revision applications as two appeals had been filed before the District Judge. Both the revision applications arise out of the same case and the parties are the

same. They have been argued together. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for Nageshwar. The other two opposite parties are absent in both the revision applications despite service. This judgment will govern both the revision petitions.

2. The revision applications came up before me for hearing on March 10, 1964. The question primarily before me is whether there has been a failure on the learned District judge to exercise jurisdiction vested in him. For a decision of that question, it is necessary to decide whether a succession certificate can be granted in respect of this amount. The question whether Shrimati Rajjoo Devi would be entitled to get the certificate has not been discussed by the learned District Judge on merits, and, therefore, if it is held that a succession certificate can be granted, the matter will have to go back to the learned District Judge for a hearing on merits.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that a succession certificate could have been granted in respect of this amount. On the other hand, Mr. P.S. Trivedi who appears for Nageshwar has contended that the amount at the credit of a subscriber to a provdent fund is not a debt or a security and, therefore, a succession certificate cannot be granted. Learned counsel has referred me to section 4 of the Provident Funds Act of 1925. The relevant portion of this section reads as follows :-

"When under the rules of any Government or Railway Provident fund the sum standing to the credit of any subscriber .......... has become payable .... .... .... .... .... shall pay the sum ............to the subscriber or depositer, or, if he is dead, shall -

(a).............

(b) If the whole sum or balance, as the case maybe, does not exceed five thousand rupees,.........pay the same, ............ to any person nominated to receive it under the rules of the Fund, or, if no person is so nominated, to any person appearing to Him to be otherwise entitled to receive it; or

(c) in the case of any sum or balance ......

which is not payable to any person under clause (a) or (b) p