NEAZMUL HAQUE Vs. MTMOULUDUNNISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three miscellaneous appeals have been heard together. They arise out of applications for succession certificate in respect of money due to Latafat Hussain Khan, a District Board employee at Gaya. The controversy before us refers to a part of his provident fund money, the total amount of which was Rs. 4,000 odd. He had made a declaration under the rules of the District Board provident fund that on his death each of his three daughters should get one-third share of the amounts at his credit. Two daughters have survived him and had drawn each one-third. There remains one-third to be disposed of. In Succession Certificate Case No. 7 of 1931 the heirs of the deceased daughter Wajibunnissa applied for a certificate. Other relatives of Latafat also put in claims. So far as the provident money was concerned, the other claimants were Wajibunnissa and Umran, sisters of Latafat and Saadat Ali Khan, brother of Latafat. The District Judge examined the question, who was entitled to the money and came to the conclusion that none of the applicants were entitled to the certificate and so rejected all the applications in respect of the provident fund.

(2.) It was apparently his opinion, that the widow was the person entitled to the money; but though she had put in an objection she had not herself made an application. So he considered that no certificate could be given to her. The appeal No. 53 is by the sons and daughters of the deceased Wajibunnissa. After the disposal of that case by the District Judge Bibi Mouluddunnissa widow of Latafat presented an application numbered as Succession Certificate Case No. 30 of 1931 praying for a certificate to entitle her to receive the whole of the sum lying with the District Board on account of the balance of the provident fund money of Latafat. Bibi Ashrafunnissa filed an objection and herself also presented an application which was numbered as Succession Certificate Case No. 2 of 1932.

(3.) She claimed that unless the heirs of Wajibunnissa were entitled to the money she herself and her sister Hafizunnissa should get it. Hafizunnissa did not herself apply for a succession certificate, but filed an objection petition in which she stated that the money ought to be paid to the heirs of Wajibunnissa and failing them to her sister and herself. On this application the District Judge examined the question, who was entitled to the money and was of opinion that the persons entitled to it were all the heirs-at-law of Latafat. He granted a succession certificate to the widow Musammat Bibi Mouludunnissa to the extent of two annas share in the money, certificate in favour of each of the two surviving daughters to the extent of 5 as. 4 p. share and gave no certificate in respect of the remainder (3 as. 4 p. share) as the persons whom he considered entitled to it had not applied before him. From this decision two appeals Nos. 119 and 120, are preferred by Bibi Mouludunnissa, the widow who claims that the entire sum should be paid to her.