Judgment :- 1. This is an appeal preferred by the additional respondents 6 and 7 in OP (Succession) No. 31 of 1980 on the file of the Sub-Court. Attingal. The first respondent herein filed an application under S.372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for succession certificate in respect of three back deposits outstanding in the name of one Saniasini Devaki Amma who died on 11-3-1980. The appellants were alone the contesting respondents. The court below rejected the objections raised by the appellants and allowed the petition. 2. Deceased Saniasini Devaki Amma was the founder President of Sree Narayana Dharma Sodari Matom. She was married to one Advocate Bahuleyan. She bad no children. Some time after the marriage, her husband died. It is alleged that after the death of her husband Devaki Amma bad been living in Varkala Sivagiri Ashram as an ascetic preaching the principles of Sree Narayana Guru to the devotees. She started Sree Narayana Dharma Sodari Matom, of which she was the first president. The petitioner Ramani was the foster daughter of deceased Devaki Amma. It appears that the petitioner Remani was brought up in the family of Devaki Amma, from her early childhood. When Devaki Amma shifted her residence to the Ashram in 1964 the petitioner resided separately and was later married to one Selvaraj. Devaki Amma had three bank deposits in her name. The name of the depositor in the bank document was shown as "Saniasini Devaki Amma." After the death of Devaki Amma, the petitioner filed an application for succession certificate to collect the money covered by these deposits. Respondents 1 to 5 are the brothers and the sister of Devaki Amma. Notice was published in the official gazette and respondents 1 to 5 filed a joint statement to the effect that they have no objection in granting certificate to the petitioner. Meanwhile the present appellants got themselves impleaded and contested the proceedings. 3. The main contention urged by the appellants is that the petitioner Ramani bad absolutely no right over the deposits made by deceased Devaki Amma. Devaki Amma was the president of the Sree Narayana Dharma Sodari Matom and after the death of her husband in 1964 she joined as a disciple of Sree Narayana Guru and had become a Saniasini. 3. The main contention urged by the appellants is that the petitioner Ramani bad absolutely no right over the deposits made by deceased Devaki Amma. Devaki Amma was the president of the Sree Narayana Dharma Sodari Matom and after the death of her husband in 1964 she joined as a disciple of Sree Narayana Guru and had become a Saniasini. Therefore the amount deposited by her was in the capacity as the president of the Dharma Sodari Matom and it devolved on the Matom. 4. On the fide of the respondents in the OP two witnesses were examined. According to these witnesses deceased Devaki Amma was a sanyasini and that the amount deposited will not devolve on the legal heirs. The contention of the appellants seems to be that deceased Devaki Amma bad entered into a religious order and thereby severed her connection with the members of the natural family and therefore the petitioner is excluded from inheriting the property of the deceased. As per the principles of Hindu Law, the persons who are excluded on this ground come under three heads, viz., the Vanaprastha, or hermit; the Sanyasi or Yati, or ascetic; and Brahmachari, or perpetual religious student. (See page 838 Chapter 19, Mayne's Hindu Law and Usage 12th Edn.). In order to bring a person under these heads it is necessary to show an absolute abandonment by him of all secular property, and a complete and final withdrawal from earthly affairs. The mere fact that a person calls himself as a Sanyasi is not sufficient to disentitle his legal heirs from inheriting the property left by him. 5. The evidence in this case does not in any way show that the deceased Devaki Amma had entered into a religious order and thereby severed all connections with the members of her natural family. It is important to note that even few days prior to her death she was residing in the house of the petitioner at Madras. She spent about a month there and underwent cataract operation for her eye. There is absolutely no evidence to show that Sree Narayana Dharma Sodan Matom was a religious order as envisaged under Hindu "Dharma Sastras". The 2nd appellant who is the present President of Dharma Sodari Matom is not a Sacyasini. She spent about a month there and underwent cataract operation for her eye. There is absolutely no evidence to show that Sree Narayana Dharma Sodan Matom was a religious order as envisaged under Hindu "Dharma Sastras". The 2nd appellant who is the present President of Dharma Sodari Matom is not a Sacyasini. From the nature of the evidency adduced in this case it appears that the Dharma Sodari Matom started be deceased Devaki Amma was a social and religious organisation intended to propagate the teachings of Sree Narayana Guru. 6. There is no evidence to show that the amount was deposited by deceased Devaki Amma in her capacity as the President of the Dharma Sodari Matom. If the deposits were made in her personal capacity, the right to collect the amount would naturally devolve on her legal representatives. Respondents 1 to 5 in the OP are the legal heirs of deceased Devaki Amma. They have no objection in granting succession certificate to the petitioner. 7. Under S.373 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 any person who has a beneficial interest in the collection of the debt due to the deceased may apply for the succession certificate. When there is dispute between the rival claimants as to the title to the debt itself it is not within the scope of the certificate proceedings to decide that dispute. It is not required that the court upon an application of succession certificate should decide for itself, as a condition for granting a certificate that the debt was really due to the deceased. Such question can only be litigated in civil court in a suit filed for the purpose. It is evident from Clause.3 of S.373 that the judge is not called upon to decide too intricate or difficult questions of law or tact in a proceeding under S.373 of the Act. S.373(3) reads as follows: "373. Procedure on application x (3) If the judge cannot decide the right to the certificate without determining questions of law or fact which seem to be too intricate and difficult for determination in a summary proceeding be may nevertheless grant a certificate to the applicant if he appears to be the person having prima facie the best title thereto." The above clause makes it clear that the judge need only satisfy prima facie title for the applicant. A Division Bench of this Court in Ammini Ammal v. Lakshmi (1957 KLT 301) held as follows: "S.372, 373, make it clear that the legislature contemplated only that the District Judge be satisfied, not that the succession certificate will be necessary under S.214 or otherwise, but that there is ground for entertaining the application. The exact character of the applicant's claim is not intended to be litigated and what is sought to be determined is only whether the applicant is the proper person or a proper person to be clothed with the representative character." 8. The court below considered the case set up by the petitioner and held that the petitioner Remani had a prima facie right to claim this amount, especially when the legal heirs of deceased Devaki Amma raised no objection in granting such a certificate. The appellants herein could not raise any tenable contentions to prove that the amount belonged to Sree Narayana Dharma Sodari Matom. The court below was fully justified in granting succession certificate to the petitioner. The appeal is of no merits. The same is dismissed. The parties to bear their costs.