JAS RAJ CHOPRA, J.—This Misc. appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned District Judge, Udaipur, dated 16.1.84, whereby the learned District Judge has accepted the application for grant of Succession Certificate, filed by respondent Smt. Onkar Bai & her daughters Smt. Sushila Devi and Smt. Kailash Devi and rejected the objection petition filed by Smt. Ramsukhi Bai. Smt. Ramsukhi Bai has therefore filed this appeal. 2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated are that deceased Arjun Lal Badapaliwal, married Smt. Onkar Bai and out of that wedlock Onkar Bai gave birth to 2 daughters i.e. Smt. Sushila Devi and Smt. Kailash Devi. Smt. Ramsukhi Bai has admitted this position. She has, however, stated that she has contracted a Nata marriage with late Shri Arjunlal, almost 30 years prior to his death and, therefore, she is also his legally wedded wife. It is not disputed that Shri Arjunlal Badapaliwal has deposited a sum of Rs. 10,500/- with the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. Clock Tower Branch, Udaipur, and obtained a fixed deposit receipt on 20.4.76, bearing No. 326191/ 195. 3. The case of the respondents is that they being the legal heirs of late Shri Arjunlal, they were entitled to receive the amount of this fixed deposit receipt, whereas Smt. Ramsukhi Bai has claimed that she, being the Natayat wife of late Shri Arjunlal and being nominated by him to receive this amount, succession certificate should not be granted in favour of the respondents and she has further claimed that Ex. D. W. l(A.l) nomination letter dated 14.7.76, executed in her favour amounts to an assignment and even on that account she is entitled to receive this amount. Initially she tiled an application for grant of probate on the basis of this document dated 147.76, treating it to be a will of late Shri Arjunlal. That application for grant of probate was accepted by the learned District Judge, but on appeal, this contention of the appellant was rejected by this Court in S. B. C. Misc. First Appeal No. 121/78 decided by Honble M. C. Jain, J., on August 31, 1979. That application for grant of probate was accepted by the learned District Judge, but on appeal, this contention of the appellant was rejected by this Court in S. B. C. Misc. First Appeal No. 121/78 decided by Honble M. C. Jain, J., on August 31, 1979. As her request for grant of probate was rejected, she claimed that she being the nominee, she is entitled to recover this amount on the basis of this document dated 14.7.76 and, therefore, succession certificate should not be issued in favour of the respondents-petitioners. No plea of assignment was taken by her in her written reply i.e. the objection petition, but in the memo of appeal this contention was raised that this letter may be treated even as an assignment. 4. I have heard Mr. Suresh Shreemali for the appellant and Shri B. L. Maheshwari for the respondents, and have meticulously gone through the record. 5. It is not disputed before me that Onkar Bai is the legally wedded wife of late Shri Arjunlal and Smt. Sushila Devi and Smt. Kailash Devi are her daughters. Smt. Ramsukhi Bai, when she entered the witness box as D. W. 1, has admitted this fact. She has, however, claimed that she has, however, contracted a Nata marriage with late Shri Arjunlal. It has been held by the learned District Judge that she has failed to prove this fact. Firstly, she has produced no independent witness to prove that she has contracted a nata-marriage with late Shri Arjunlal. She has claimed in her cross-examination that there is a custom amongst the Brhamins to contract a Nata-marriage. That caste custom has not been got proved by adducing any evidence. Rather no examination has been given, as to who amongst the Brahmins have contracted Nata-marriage. When she was asked as to what formalities were undergone at the time of the Nata-marriage, she has stated that no such formalities were undergone but later she said that they have been undergone. But she failed to state as to what were those formalities which have been undergone on the basis of which she may claim that her Nata-marriage with late Shri Arjunlal became complete. Of course she has stated that 4-5 ladies had taken their meals and they sung songs but they are not religious formalities. She has admitted that she belongs to Rajput caste. 6. Of course she has stated that 4-5 ladies had taken their meals and they sung songs but they are not religious formalities. She has admitted that she belongs to Rajput caste. 6. The learned District Judge has observed that even in the document dated 14.7.76, Smt. Ramsukhi Bai has been described as the daughter of Gottuji and not as the Natayat wife of late Shri Arjunlal. If Shri Arjun Lal has accepted her as his wife, on account of the Natamarriage performed by him, he must have mentioned this fact in Ex.D.W.l(A.l). In this document he has only recited that she was offering certain services to him. He has nowhere admitted that she was living with him as his Natayatwife, for the past about 30 years. 7. P.W.1 Smt. Onkar Bai has categorically stated that no such Nata-marriage was ever performed by Arjunlal with Smt. Ramsukhi Bai. Taking an overall view of the evidence on record, I agree with the learned District Judge that Smt. Ramsukhi Bai has not been able to prove that she is the legally wedded wife of late Shri Arjunlal. 8. It is a settled position of law that once a man dies intestate, his succession immediately opens and the properties that vest in the deceased can be claimed on the basis of succession by his or her legal heirs. Undoubtedly in this case, the petitioners, Smt. Onkar Bai, Smt. Sushila Devi and Smt Kailash Devi have proved that they are the only legal heirs of late Shri Arjunlal and, therefore, they are entitled to succeed to the movable and immovable properties belonging to late Shri Arjunlal Badapaliwal. 9. Mr. Shreemali, appearing for Smt. Ramsukhi Bai has contended that in the earlier proceedings which are initiated by Smt. Ramsukhi Bai, for grant of probate, this Court has observed that Ex.D.W.l (A.l) was executed by late Shri Arjunlal in his own hand and by this writing he has nominated Smt. Ramsukhi Bai to receive the amount of this fixed deposit Receipt ExA2. When this has been held by this Court in an earlier judgment, it should be held that she is entitled to recover this amount, from the bank on account of the nomination made in her favour and in the alternative it was submitted that the document Ex.DWl (A.l) be treated as an assignment of this fixed deposit receipt made by late Shri Arjunlal, in favour of Smt. Ramsukhi Bai. Mr. Shreemali has contended that in this summary proceedings if Smt. Ramsukhi Bai has proved that she is the nominee as regards the recovery of this amount of the fixed deposit receipt Ex A.2, she alone can give the valid charge of the receipt to the bank and, therefore, succession certificate should be granted in her favour rather than in favour of the petitioners. In this respect, he placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Chotey Khan vs. Mst. Zeenat (1). This was a case of nomination made regarding the Provident Fund Account and the court held that after the death of the subscriber the nominee alone becomes entitled to the exclusion of all other persons, to receive such sum or part thereof; as the case may be, unless the nomination is varies or cancelled, or it becomes invalid by reason of the happening of some contingency specified therein. In this respect, reference was made to S.2 (c), 4 and 5 (1) of the Provident Funds Act, i.e. the Act No.XIX of 1925 and it was further held that this provision overrides the provisions contained in other enactments as also any other disposition, whether it is testamentary or otherwise. 10. Reliance was also placed on a Division Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Lakshmamma Vs.P.S Subramanyam (2), wherein it has been held that in a case relating to Provident Fund, the nomination of a person who is not dependent is also valid u/s 2 and 4 of the Provident Fund Act. That was a case where a lady claimed the deposit on the death of the person as widow of the depositor. It was also held that she is entitled to it in preference to son of depositor even though it is found that she was not legally married to the depositor. 11. That was a case where a lady claimed the deposit on the death of the person as widow of the depositor. It was also held that she is entitled to it in preference to son of depositor even though it is found that she was not legally married to the depositor. 11. Both these cases relate to Provident Fund Act, wherein there is clear-cut provision regarding nomination in favour of any person who may not be a dependent. 12. In rebuttal Mr.Maheshwari placed reliance on a single Bench decision of the Kerala High Court, in Abdul Karim v. Raheesa Ansari (3). It was observed by the learned Judge that grant of succession certificate does not depend on the right of any claimant to the debt. The certificate does not recognize or invest in the grantee title to the debt or property in the debt. Inspite of the nomination, the legal heirs of the deceased, who were not nominees under the Insurance Policy are still entitled to succession certificate in respect of the Insurance certificate. As such, the amount belonging to the estate of the deceased or vests in the heirs on the death of the deceased. 13. Mr. Maheshwari further submitted that the fixed deposit receipt, by its very nature is not transferable and it is one of the conditions of the fixed deposit receipt that it is not transferable. 14. I cannot agree with Mr. Maheshwari to the extent it is asserted by him. Condition No. 1 of this fixed deposit receipt is that it is not transferable by endorsement. Thus, there is no prohibition for the transfer of this receipt except otherwise than by an endorsement made on the back of it. Be that as it may, Mr. Maheshwari submitted that even if it is held that a nomination has been made in favour of Smt. Ramsukhi Bai, then too the legal heirs are entitled to get a succession certificate of the fixed deposit receipt as the legal heirs of the depositor because that forms part of the deposit. In this respect reliance was placed on a Single Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in Abdul Karims case (supra). 15. In this respect reliance was placed on a Single Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in Abdul Karims case (supra). 15. Mr.Maheshwari further drew my attention to a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarbati Devi vs. Smt. Usha Devi (4) wherein it has been held that a mere nomination made under section 39 of the Insurance Act (Act No. 40 of 1938), does not have the effect of conferring on the nominee any beneficial interest in the amount payable under the life insurance policy on the death of the assured. The nomination only indicates the hand which is authorised to receive the amount, on the payment of which the insurer gets a valid discharge of its liability under the policy. The amount, who-ever, can be claimed by the heirs of the assured in accordance with the law of succession governing them. He has submitted that even if it is admitted for arguments sake that document Ex. DW 1 (A.l) is a nomination letter as obser-ved by this court in its earlier judgment, then too it confers no right on the appellant to hold this amount. Succession certificate about this amount can be claimed by the petitioners as legal heirs of the deceased because the fixed deposit receipt forms part of the estate of the deceased. In this respect Mr. Maheshwari submitted that the Provident Fund Act, as also the Insurance Act, provide for nomination of the amount but there is no such provision in the Indian Banking Companies Act for the payment of the amount of fixed deposit receipts through nomination. The learned District Judge has also considered this aspect of the matter and has held that as there was no provision in the Indian Banking Companies Act, regarding nomination, an amendment bill, namely Banking Law Amendment Act was published in the Indian Gazette on 10.5.83 in which in s. 3(b) it was mentioned that s. 45(2) (a, b and c) be amended so as to incorporate a provision for nomination which denotes on that earlier no provision existed regarding nomination of Bank fixed deposits and, therefore no nomination could be made regarding this fixed deposit receipt issued by the Bank of Rajas-than. It is because of this that this letter of nomination was materially altered and certain attestations were obtained to project it as will and to obtain succession by grant on the basis of that will as actually Smt. Ramsukhi Bai has actually and this court vide its judgment dated August 31, 1979 marked Ex. 1 has observed that this document has been materially altered. It was held that it was not executed after Shri Arjunlal was admitted in the hospital but it was executed earlier than that and later these attestations were obtained to project it as a will. It is not proved that these attestations have been made in the presence of late Shri Arjunlal. It was stated by Smt. Ramsukhi Bai in the earlier proceedings that these attestations were made in the hospital at the time when this document was executed by Shri Arjunlal. But the learned Single Judge of this Court has held that this document was not executed in the hospital and, therefore, the evidence regarding attestation being made in his presence in the hospital has not been believed. It very clearly means that these attestations were made afterwards in-order to cloth the beneficiary of that document with the right to get this amount of this fixed deposit receipt as a legatee of late Shri Arjunlal. Probably Smt. Ramsukhi Bai was advised that she may not succeed to get the payment of this amount on the basis of the nomination latter as there is no provision in the Banking Act regarding nomination of the fixed deposit receipt and so the strengthen her right this document was materially altered. When an altercation is made with the object of altering the rights of the parties it amounts to material alteration. The appellant herself has mentioned in ground gh that the phrase material alteration means such an alteration which varies rights liabilities or legal position of the parties as ascertained by the deed in its original state. In this case, the original deed only nominated Smt. Ramsukhi Bai to receive the amount of this fixed deposit receipt after the death of Shri Arjunlal. In this case, the original deed only nominated Smt. Ramsukhi Bai to receive the amount of this fixed deposit receipt after the death of Shri Arjunlal. But those rights were varied and it was altered into a will and, therefore, even according to the contention of the appellant this amounts to material alteration and on the basis of such a materially altered document, no rights can be claimed and no relief should be granted. 16. Whether such a nomination confers any rights on Smt. Ramsukhi Bai is a complicated question of law and it could have been agitated by a separate suit, if the nomination remained in its original form. On the basis of this document, a title is claimed to this property and the proceedings under Succession Act, are summary in nature and the legislature did not contemplate to decide the complicated questions of law and fact regarding title of this disputed property. In this respect Mr. Maheshwari has drawn my attention to a Division Bench decision of the Kerala High Court, in Ammini Ammal V. Lakshmi (5), wherein it has been held that s. 372 and 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. It was further observed that the Act is thus not intended to afford litigant parties an opportunity of litigating contested questions of title to property. The court has no doubt to satisfy itself that the person to whom it grants the certificate has the prima facie right and for this purpose some enquiry may be necessary in some cases, but if on facts admitted by both parties the prima facie title for grant of the certificate is clear, the Court can dispense with any enquiry. 17. I have already observed above that it is not disputed that the petitioners are the legally wedded wife and daughters of late Shri Arjunlal and I have already held above that Smt. Ramsukhi Bai is not the Natayat wife of late Shri Arjunlal and, therefore, Ex. A. 2 being the State of the deceased, the heirs of late Shri Arjunlal are entitled to succeed to this property. Smt. Ramsukhi Bai has set up Ex. Dw. A. 2 being the State of the deceased, the heirs of late Shri Arjunlal are entitled to succeed to this property. Smt. Ramsukhi Bai has set up Ex. Dw. 1 (A.l) a document to thwart that claim and has asserted in her written statement that it is a nomination letter. I have observed just now that it is an interpolated document or for that matter a materially altered document and, therefore, on the basis of such a document no right can be claimed nor can it be granted. It is an established position of law that on the basis of materially altered document, no relief can be granted to a party. When one seeks equity and justice, must do justice and if one sets up a document in support of his or her claim which is materially altered document, having been altered to bister up ones own rights, in order to negative the rights of others which are, otherwise vested in them, then he or she is entitled to no relief, on the basis of that document 18. Mr. Shreemali appearing for the appellant has next submitted that even if it is held that the Banking Companies Act, does not provide for any nomination, this document Ex. DW 1 (A. I) should be treated to be an assignment of the fixed deposit receipt made by Shri Arjunlal, in favour of Smt. Ramsukhi Bai. He has submitted that it is an actionable claim and its assignment is permissible by law u/s 130 of the Transfer of Property Act. He placed reliance in this respect on a Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in Simon Thomas v. State Bank of Trawancore (6). In this case the full Bench has held that a fixed deposit receipt is an actionable claim but a transfer of an actionable claim has to be absolute in law. In other words a transfer of actionable claim by way of security was not permissible in law but English equity recognised an assignment or an actionable claim by way of security. Under section 130 of the T.P. Act an absolute assignment as well as an assignment by way of security, are both permissible. It is not a case of assignment by way of security and, therefore, to bring the case of the appellant in the preview of an assignment the assignment has to be absolute and irrevocable. Under section 130 of the T.P. Act an absolute assignment as well as an assignment by way of security, are both permissible. It is not a case of assignment by way of security and, therefore, to bring the case of the appellant in the preview of an assignment the assignment has to be absolute and irrevocable. S. 130 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that transfer of actionable claim with or without consideration shall be effected only by execution of an instrument in writing signed by the transferor or his duly authorised agent. The Section does not insist on any particular words being used or any particular form being adopted. Nor is it necessary that the terms of the transfer must be discernible from a single instrument. The question in such cases will be to what was the intention of the parties and was there any intention to transfer and has there been an instrument in writing signed by the transferor. 19. It is, therefore, clear that the assignment has to be of an actionable claim. Reliance was also placed on a Single Bench Decision of this Court in Khub Chand v. Tulsi Ram (7) wherein a deposit of Rs. 2,000/- made by one G. with S. was assigned. It was held to be an actionable claim and it was further held that it could be transferred by a gift deed u/s 130 of Transfer of Property Act. It has not been asserted before me that Ex. DW. 1 (A.l) is a gift deed and, therefore, this decision has not application to the facts of the present case. 20. Reliance was also made to a Division Bench decision of the Assam High Court in Mohanlal Malpani v. The Loan Company of Assam Ltd. (8) wherein it has been held that assignment of actionable claim is permissible u/s 130 of the T.P. Act and no particular form is necessary. There is no quarrel about this principle laid down by the Assam High Court. In this respect reliance was also placed on an English decision of the Chancery Division in Duffin v. Duffin (9) wherein a fixed deposit note for $ 560 was transferred with this endorsement "pay self or bearer $ 580 and interest" and it was held that it was a valid transfer. 21. Mr. In this respect reliance was also placed on an English decision of the Chancery Division in Duffin v. Duffin (9) wherein a fixed deposit note for $ 560 was transferred with this endorsement "pay self or bearer $ 580 and interest" and it was held that it was a valid transfer. 21. Mr. Shreemali also relied on two more authorities which are as under - Maiyan Dalip Rajeshwari Debi vs. Shri Mohan Bikram Sah alias Ram Raja (10) and Dolly Edelwaize D Silva V. Mrs. Mealakin (11). Both these cases related to gifts made and it is not a case of gift and, therefore, these two authorities have no application to the facts of the case. 22. Mr. Maheshwari, appearing for the respondents has submitted that the assignment to be effective has to be complete and irrevocable meaning thereby that as soon as the assignment is made, it must divest the transferee of all the rights regarding property assigned. In this respect, he placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of the Madras High Court in D. Mohanavelu Mudaliar vs. Indian Insurance and Banking Corporation Ltd. Salem (12) wherein it has been observed that under the general law, an assignment is understood as a transfer by an individual of his right or interest in the property to another resting upon a contract between them. That being the case if a policy is assigned it operates so as to completely divest the assignor of any right under it, for the essence of assignment is complete divesting. The assignee is, therefore, clothed with all the rights and liabilities which the insured occupied before the transfer, that is, there is a substitution for the assured so far as the benefits are concerned by the assignee. 23. The same view has been expressed by a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in Brahmayya and Co. v. K.P. Thangavelu Nadar (13), wherein the learned Judge has observed that under s. 130 of the Transfer of Property Act title passed to and vests in the assignee or transferee on the execution of the transfer deed and no further action on his part such as sending a notice to the debtor as under the English law, is necessary to complete his title. 24. My attention was also drawn by Mr. 24. My attention was also drawn by Mr. Maheshwari, to a Single Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in Central Board of Industries and Commerce v. Shri Sham Lal Gupta (14), wherein the learned Single Judge held that the fixed deposit receipts are not negotiable or even transferable on the face of them A deposit receipt, even if in terms it is expressed to be transferable, has never been recognised as a negotiable instrument or as giving the transferee a right to sue in his own name. This observation is made on the basis of Halsbury Laws of England 4th ed. Vo. 3.P.58. The learned Judge, however, observed that the deposit receipt can be assigned as the receipt represents debts and that being an actionable claim it can be assigned u/s 130 of the Transfer of Property Act. The learned Judge further observed that a fixed deposit receipt is not transferable by endorsement. This only suggests that a fixed deposit receipt cannot be transferred by endorsement and it can be, assigned, but to make the assignment complete, it must operate in completely divesting the transferee of any right or title in the property assigned. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bharat Nidhi Ltd. v. Takhatmal by his legal representatives (15) held that although the document did not amount to a transfer within s. 130 it would operate as an equitable assignment of the actionable claim. Their Lordships further observed that it gives the payee no interest in the fund. An assignment creates an interest in the fund and is not revocable. 25. The upshot of the entire discussion is that an assignment has to be in the present and it must completely divest the assignor of all rights and interest in the property assigned and it is irrevocable. 26. A perusal of Ex. DW. 1 (A. i) will reveal that the fixed deposit receipt was payable on 20.4.77 and Shri Arjunlal has mentioned in this document that the payment of this fixed deposit receipt be made to Smt. Ramsukhi Bai if he dies before 20.4.77, which clearly means that if he survives upto 20.4.77, he will take the payment of this fixed deposit, but if he dies prior to 20.4.77, then the payment of this fixed deposit receipt may be given to Smt. Ramsukhi Bai, whose photostat is affixed on the disputed document Ex. DW. 1 (A 1). DW. 1 (A 1). Thus, this is only a conditional nomination. It cannot be termed to be an assignment. No absolute divesting took place through this document. If Shri Arjunlal who was ill at that lime, lived upto 20.4.77, he had the right to take payment of this fixed deposit receipt and, therefore, he did not completely divest himself of all rights regarding this Ex. DW. 1 (A. I; and hence, this document also cannot be termed to be as assignment. 27. Firstly, no plea of assignment was taken in the written statement and secondly I have already held that Ex. DW1. (A. 1) is a materially altered document and, therefore, on the basis of such a materially altered document, no relief can be granted to the person who sets up such a document. Thirdly, this document is not an assignment as such. Thus, judging the case from all angles, I am convinced that the appeal filed by the appellant Smt. Ramsukhi Bai has no force and it deserves to be dismissed. 28. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. I am inclined to hold that although the appeal filed by Smt. Ramsukhi Bai must fail but the parties are left to bear their own costs. 29. Before parting with this case, it will be proper to dispose of the application filed by the respondents u/s 351 C.P.C., whereby they have claimed that the Bank has stopped adding interest to the fixed deposit receipt and so the appellant should be asked to pay interest at the rate of 18% to the respondents, incase the appeal fails. The appellant has raised a legal ground, which she was advised to raise. It was a contested point and, therefore, if she has been advised to raise this point in this appeal, she cannot be saddled with the interest on that account. I, therefore, find no force in this application filed by the respondents and hereby reject it. 30. In the result, this appeal has no force and it is hereby dismissed. The costs of the appeal are, however, made easy.