Pritam Pal, J. - (1.) ONE Harnam Dass, resident of Chandigarh, died on April 17, 1974 At the time of death he had two accounts with the Central Bank of India, and one account in the Punjab State Co -operative Bank limited, Chandigarh Unrealised pension of Rs. 476 80 paise also due to him In all he was entitled to realise an amount of Rs. 2481 76 paise vis -a -vis the aforesaid Back accounts and the arrears of pension. The Petitioner Smt Roma applied for the grant of succession certificate, under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') in her favour regarding this amount claiming to be adopted daughter of the deceased Harnam Dass. This application was resisted by Girdhari Lal Respondent No 1, brother of the deceased He assailed the factum and validity of the Petitioner's adoption and contended that in fact he is the preferential heir of the deceased's niece.
(2.) THE learned trial Court, on appraisal of evidence produced by the parties, held that the Petitioner is proved to be the adopted daughter of the deceased. In the wake of this finding the certificate for succession was issued in her favour on her furnishing security in the sum of Rs 2500/ -, undertaking to indemnify the preferential heir, if any, of the deceased Against this judgment Girdhari Lal filed an appeal which was decided by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh. The appellate Court concurred with the finding of the trial Court on the point of adoption of the Petitioner by the deceased Harnam Dass, but it entertained doubt regarding the validity of the adoption. It was held that the question of title between the parties is not capable of decision in the summary proceedings under Section 372 of the Act, and consequently the parties were left to get their rights determined in a regular civil suit In the light of this finding, the order of the trial Court granting the succession certificate to the Petitioner was set aside. The Petitioner has filed the instant revision petition against the judgment of the appellate Court The relevant provisions of Section 373 of the Act which deal with the procedure on an application under Section 372 read as under: xxx xxx xxx (2) When the Judge decides the rights thereto to belong to the applicant the Judge shall make an order for the grant of the certificate to him. (3) If the Judge cannot decide the right to the certificate without determining questions of law or fact which seems to him to be too intricate and difficult for determination in a summary proceeding, he may nevertheless grant a certificate to the applicant if he appears to be the person having prima facie the best title thereto.
(3.) A plain reading of the above provisions shows that if the trial Court comes to a positive finding that the person applying under section 372 of the Act is entitled to the amount claimed, it has necessarily to grant a succession certificate in his favour However, if the Court cannot decide the right to the certificate without determining intricate questions of law or fact it may either refuse to grant the certificate living the parties to get their rights determined in a civil suit or in its discretion grant a certificate to the applicant if he appears to be a person having prima facie the best title thereto. In the present case the trial Court held that the Petitioner, as adopted daughter of the deceased, was entitled to get the disputed amounts and consequently ordered for the grant of the succession certificate in her favour. The appellate Court did not disagree with the trial Court on the point that the Petitioner had been adopted by the deceased, but it held that, to determine the validity of the adoption, intricate questions of law were involved which were not capable of decision in the summary proceedings under Section 372 of the Act. In other words although the Petitioner's right to inheri(sic) the deceased could not be finally decided, without determining questions of law which seemed to be too intricate and difficult for determination in a summary proceeding, but the Petitioner indeed appeared to be the person having prima facie the best title to obtain the succession certificate. In such a situation the appellate Court erred in setting aside the order of the trial Court granting the succession certificate to the Petitioner;