JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal arising out of a proceeding under the Succession Certificate Act. The point in issue is a simple one. A Muhammadan lady died leaving, as her heirs, a husband, a brother and three daughters. An application for was Succession Certificate in respect of the dower-debt due to the lady was made by the brother, who is the respondent to this appeal. He asked for a Succession Certificate in respect of that share only of the dower-debt which he would inherit under the Muhammadan Law. The daughters objected that he should not be allowed a Succession Certificate for anything leas than the whole amount of the debt. The learned District Judge has passed an order, which partly sustains and partly repeats the objection taken by the daughters. He calculates that 1/4th of the dower-debt has been automatically satisfied on the death of the lady, by reason of her husband's having inherited 1/4th share in her estate. He has also calculated, further, that any claim which one of the daughters might have in respect of her share in the dower-debt is now barred by limitation; hence he holds that the only valid debt not due, or recoverable from the husband, is the share of two of the daughters, amounting to 4/9thg of the whole, together with the share of the brother. He has, therefore, sailed upon the respondent to take out a Succession Certificate in respect of 4/9ths plus 1/12th of the entire debt. The daughters have brought the matter up to this. Court in appeal. The learned District Judge has referred to an older decision of this Court, Muhammad Ali Khan v. Puttan Bibi 19 A. 129 : (1896) A.W.N. 198 : 9 Ind. Dec. 85, a decision which does support the view taken by him; but he has overlooked the fact that the entire question was reconsidered by a Full Bench of this Court in Ghafoor Khan v. Kalandari Begam 9 Ind. Cas. 127 : 33 A. 327 : 8 A.L.J. 79. In that case the learned Judges laid it down, in the most unqualified and uncompromising terms, that the dower, debt due to a Muhammadan lady was a single debt, that the Succession Certificate Act does not contemplate the granting of a certificate for the collection of any portion of a debt, and that, consequently, no Succession Certificate should be granted in a case like the present except for the collection of the entire debt. The present case is quite indistinguish able on the facts from that decided by the Full Bench, and it might be sufficient for us to say that we are bound to accept the view of the law laid down by the Full Bench and to determine this case accordingly. Certain arguments have, however, been addressed to us in respect of which it is, perhaps, expedient that we should say a few words. The question now before us has been considered by the Calcutta High Court in two cases decided subsequently to the Full Bench case of this Court. These are Mohamed Abdul Hussan v. Sharifan 12 Ind. Cas. 593 : 16 C.W.N. 231 : 15 C.L.J. 384, Annapurna Dasya v. Nalini Mohan Das 23 Ind. Cas. 556 : 18 C.W.N. 836 : 42 C. 10. The case of Ghafoor Khan v. Kalandari Begam 9 Ind. Cas. 127 : 33 A. 327 : 8 A.L.J. 79 was oited in the Calcutta cases and the learned Judges of that Court expressly dissented from it. On this ground mainly an appeal has been made to us to refer the questions raised by this appeal for reconsideration by a complete Full Bench of this Court. It is to be observed that the difference of opinion between Allahabad and Calcutta goes very much further than the mere question of the dower-debt of a Muhammadan lady. The learned Judges in Calcutta have, in effect, looked at the whole matter from the point of view of the rights of a creditor when he comes to institute a suit for the recovery of his debt in a Civil Court, They point out that no creditor can be completed to sue for the whole of the debt due to himself, it would be quite open to him to remit a portion of the debt and institute a suit for the balance only. For these and other reasons, the learned Judges in Calcutta