This revision petition arises from an order of the District Judge Barpeta made on 24.7.87 in Misc. (S/C) Appeal Nov 4/87 modifying the order passed by the Assistant District Judge, Barpeta in Misc. (S/C) Case Nos. 55/86 and 56/86. 2. Facts,-Dayal Chandra Das, who was an employee in N. F. Railway, died on 9.3.86. On his death, Smti. Aruna Das and Smti. Dipali Das filed two separate applications (Misc. (S/C) Cases Nos 55 & 56 of 1986) for a succession certificate in respect of the Provident Fund, Family Pension, etc. In Misc. Case No. 55/86 filed by Aruna, she claims her right to the certificate on the ground that she is the widow of the deceased Dayal. Dipali filed Misc. Case No. 56/86 stating she is the only widow of the deceased Dayal Chandra. The Assistant District Judge Barpeta rejected the application filed by Dipali and granted the succession certificate to Aruna Das. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assistant District Judge, Dipali filed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 4/87 in the Court of District Judge Barpeta. The District Judge partly allowed the appeal granting two separate succession certificates, one in favour of Aruna in respect of 50% of the amount, and the other to Dipali in respect of remaining 50%. Hence this petition by Aruna Das. 3. The only question which has been raised in (his petition is whether two such succession certificates can be granted. 4. Under section 373 of the Indian Succession Act, on the application of a succession certificate, the Court is to made inquiry into the right of the applicant to the certificate. Under sub-section (3) of section 373 inquiry is directed to be summary to inquire into the right to the certificate is not the same thing as right to the estate of the deceased, but it is not altogether unconnected with the right. The main object of the grant of a succession certificate is to facilitate the collection of debts by the heirs or on behalf of heirs of the deceased and to enable the debtors to obtain a vaild discharge. It there are rival applicants, the Judge is only authorised to grant certificate to the person having prima facie the best title thereto. Lengthy investi­gation is not required like a regular suit. 5. It there are rival applicants, the Judge is only authorised to grant certificate to the person having prima facie the best title thereto. Lengthy investi­gation is not required like a regular suit. 5. In Abdul Gaffur vs. Jayarabi, AIR 1929 Bombay 456 (DB), it has been held that the grant of probate or administration should be of all the properties to one individual or to two or more jointly. It is not permissible to grant certificate or letters of administration in fraction to two or more. It has also been held that, where there are more; than one applicant for a certificate, it is in the discretion of the Court to grant certificate to one having regard to the extent of interest and the fitness of the applicants. 6. In Smti Ganga Devi vs. Munia, AIR 1966 Allahabad 107, the Allahabad High Court has, belying on the earlier decisions of the same High Court, held that "Succession Act makes it clear that with regard to one debt or specified debts only one succession certificate, and not more, can be granted. Even though an application is 'made by more than one person, the certificate has to be granted to one person who is the best suited for the purpose. , 7. In Fateh Mohammed vs. Malkani AIR 1950 Lahore 185 (DB), the Lahore High Court has held that the grant of separate succession certificates is permissible in respect of one debt or a portion of a debt though two or more separate certificates cannot be granted in respect of the same debt or the same portion of the debt. 8. Under sub-section (4) of section 373 the law as to case where there are more applicants than one for a certificate, and where more than one of such applicants is interested, is "the judge may, in deciding to whom the certificate is to be - granted, have regard to the extent of interest and fitness in other respects of the applicants." 9. The article "a" used in sub-section (4) of section 373 has varying meanings and uses. The article 'a' is not necessarily a singular term. It is often used in sense of "any", and is then applied to more than one individual object. The article "a" used in sub-section (4) of section 373 has varying meanings and uses. The article 'a' is not necessarily a singular term. It is often used in sense of "any", and is then applied to more than one individual object. Therefore, section 373 does not prohibit the grant of separate succession certificates forming an unit in respect of one debt or a portion of debt, but two or more separate or different certificates cannot be granted in respect of the same debt or the same portion of the debt. In view of my above conclusion, I respectfully agree with the decision of the Lahore High Court, and, with due respect, I am unable to agree with the decisions of the High Courts of Bombay and Allahabad. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the Distict Judge cannot be interfered with. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. No costs.