JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Bhilwara dated 31-1-1981 whereby the learned Trial Court has issued a certificate in favour of plaintiff-respondent Bundu on the basis of the will executed by Shri Gafoor in his favour as regards the receipt of gratuity amount of Rs. 3,200/- and Bonus for the year 1976-77 amounting to Rs. 700/-. 2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated are : that plaintiff-respondent's father Ibrahim, defendant-appellant's father Chhotu and Gafoor's father Karim Bux were the real brothers. Chhotu's daughter Mst. Bannu was married to Karim Bur's son Gafoor. It is alleged that plaintiff-respondent Bundu's father had two other sons viz., Mohd. Farooq and Kaloo and defendant appellant Mst. Bannu's father had one son viz., Gulam Rasool. Defendant-appellant Bannu's husband Gafoor was doing service in Mewar Textiles Mills. He had a P.F. A/c with that factory and was also entitled to receive gratuity and Bonus. It is alleged that defendant-appellant Mst. Bannu started living separately from her husband before about 10 years of his death and they did not have any marital relations with each other. It is further alleged that when Gafoor was ill Mst. Bannu was called for but she did not turn to her marital home. Actually, an oral dissolution of marriage has also taken place between them. As Gafoor had no issues, he started living with plaintiff-respondent Bundu, who is his uncle's son. Gafoor was pleased with the services rendered by Bundu and, therefore, he executed a will in his favour bequeathing his entire property to him oo 13-8-1978. It is alleged that Gafoor died on 18-8-1978 and a sum of Rs. 2,500/- was spent on the performance of his last rites by the plaintiff-respondent Bundu. The plaintiff-respondent Bundu has therefore, claimed a succession certificate on the basis of the will executed by Gafoor in his favour to receive P.F. amount of Rs. 6,700/, Gratuity amount of Rs. 3,200/- and Bonus amount of Rs. 700/-. Notices were issued to the residuary of - Gafoor. Mohd. Farooq and Kaloo sons of Ibrahimji and the real brothers of plaintiff-respondent Bundu accepted the claim of Bundu and they have prayed that on the basis of this will, succession certificate be granted in favour of Bundu as regards the property of Gafoor. Gulam Rasool son of Chhotuji and Mst. Notices were issued to the residuary of - Gafoor. Mohd. Farooq and Kaloo sons of Ibrahimji and the real brothers of plaintiff-respondent Bundu accepted the claim of Bundu and they have prayed that on the basis of this will, succession certificate be granted in favour of Bundu as regards the property of Gafoor. Gulam Rasool son of Chhotuji and Mst. Banno daughter of Chhotuji and the wife of deceased Gafoor have opposed the grant of succession certificate in favour of plaintiff-respondent Bundu on the basis of the will executed by deceased Gafoor. They have contended that Mst. Banno is the married wife of late Shri Gafoor. No dissolution of marriage was obtained and Mst. Banno has been looking after her husband throught his life. Moreover, it has been alleged that no will was executed by Shri Gafoor in favour of plaintiff-respondent Bundu. 3. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed four issues. From the side of the plaintiff-respondent, P.W. 1 Bundu, P.W. 2 Sattar, P.W. 3 Gulam Nabbi, P.W. 4 Ismail son of Hajari and P.W. 5 Ismail son of Rahmat were examined whereas on behalf of defendant-appellant, D.W. I Mst. Banno, D.W. 2 Gulam Rasool, D.W. 3 Chiragudeen, and D.W. 4 Noor Mohd. were examined. A notice was issued to the Provident Fund Commissioner and in pursuance of that notice, his representative put in appearance before the Court and informed that P.F. amount of Rs. 6,700/- has already been paid to Mst. Banno and, therefore, no succession certificate was granted in respect of that amount. However, after hearing both the parties, the learned Lower Court decide the application for grant of succession certificate as aforesaid and hence, this appeal. 4. I have heard Mr. L.R. Kalla, the learned Counsel appearing for the defendant-appellant and Mr. N.P. Gupta, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent and have carefully gone through the record of the case. 5. It is admitted case of the parties that Bundu's father Ibrahimji, Mst. Bannu s father Chhotuji and Gafoor's father Karim Buxji were the real brother. It is also admitted case of the parties that Mst. Bannu was married to Gafoor. Of- course, the plaintiff-respondent Bandu has come forward with a case that that marriage between Gafoor and Mst. 5. It is admitted case of the parties that Bundu's father Ibrahimji, Mst. Bannu s father Chhotuji and Gafoor's father Karim Buxji were the real brother. It is also admitted case of the parties that Mst. Bannu was married to Gafoor. Of- course, the plaintiff-respondent Bandu has come forward with a case that that marriage between Gafoor and Mst. Bannu was dissolved before about 10 years from the date of the death of Gafoor but this fact is seriously disputed by Mst. Bannu and she has stated on oath that the marriage had never been dissolved. Her version has been supported by her brother D.W. 2 Gulaam Rasool as also D.W. 3 Chiragudeen and D.W. 4 Noor Mohd. The plaintiff-respondent Bundu and his witnesses have, of course, stated that Gafoor gave Talak to Mst. Bannu and, therefore, they had no marital relations for the past about 10 years from the date of the death of Gafoor. I have gone through the will (Ex. I), which has been executed by Shri Gafoor in favour of plaintiff-respondent Bundu. In this will, which has been executed on 13-8-1978, i.e. only five days before the death of Gafoor, it has been got recorded that Gafoor's wife Mst. Bannu has not been living with him for the past about 10 years. It has been further got recorded that Mst. Bannu was asked to return back to her marital home at the time when Gafoor was ill but she did not turn to her marital home and therefore, Gafoor had started living with his uncle's son Bundu for the past about one year. Thus, it is clear that no dissolution of marriage took place between Mst. Bannu and Gafoor and, therefore, she has to be treated as a legally wedded wife of Gafoor. 6. Now, so far as the execution of the Will (Ex. I) is concerned, Mr. L.R. Kalla, the learned Counsel appearing for the defendant-appellant has submitted that for the execution of a proper Will, the attesting witnesses have to state that the executant had signed the will in their presence and at that time, he was capable of executing the will and they have attested the document on the request of the executant. I am afraid, I cannot agree Mr. L.R. Kalla on this aspect of the matter. I am afraid, I cannot agree Mr. L.R. Kalla on this aspect of the matter. According to the Mohomedan Law, a will may be made either verbally or in writing and no particular form even of verbal declaration, is necessary as long as the intention of the testator can be sufficiently ascertained. Thus, a Mohomedan can make an oral will. He need not execute a will in writing which must be attested in a particular manner as suggested by Mr. Kalla. A mohomedan cannot by will dispose of more than a third of the surplus of his estate after payment of funeral expenses and debts. Bequests in excess of the legal third cannot take effect, unless the heirs consent there to after the death of the testator. Section 61 of the Mohomedan Law provides for classes of heirs and it reads as follows : "Section 61. Classes of heirs : There are three classes of heirs, namely (1) Sharers (2) Residuaries and (3) Distant Kindred : (1) 'Sharers' are those who are entitled to a prescribed shares of the inheritance; (2) 'Residuaries' are those who take no prescribed share, but succeed to the 'residue' after the claims of the sharers are satisfied; (3) 'Distant Kindred' are all those relations by blood who are neither sharers nor Residuaries Section 63 of the Mohomedans Law defines the term 'sharers' and it reads as under : "63. Sharers ; After payment of funeral expenses, debts and legacies, the first step in the distribution of the estate, of a deceased Mohomedan is to ascertain which of the surviving relations belong to the class of sharers, and which again of these are entitled to a share of the inheritance, and after this is done, to proceed to assign their respective circumstances of the case, entitled to succeed to a share. The first column in the accompanying table (P. 66-A) contains a list of Sharers; the second column specifies the normal share of each sharer; the third column specifies the conditions which determine the right of each sharer to a share and the fourth column sets out the shares as varied by special circumstances." According to the table of sharer of the Sharers appended to Section 63 of the Mahomadan Law, sharers are; father, true grand father, husband, wife, mother, true grand mother, daughter, son's daughter uterine brother or sister, full sister and consanguine sister. In the case on hand, it is an admitted case of the parties, that late Gafoor is not surived by his father, true grand father, mother, true grand mother, daughters, son's daughter, uterine brother or sister, full sister and consanguine sister. Thus amongst the category of sharers, he had only left behind his wife Mst. Bannu. The next category of heirs are 'residuaries' and they are governed by Section 65. Gulam Rasool son of Chhotuji, and Mohd. Farooq and Kaloo sons of Ibrahimji as also the plaintiff-respondent Bundu son of Ibrahimji fall under the category of full paternal uncle's sons. They find place at item No. 15 in the table of residuaries in order of succession, on page 72 A of the Text Book 'Principles Mahomedan Law by Mulla', Eighteenth Edition. The wife is not a residuary and no other residuary who may take the property in preference to these persons are alive. In these circumstance it is held that Mst. Bannu being the sharer in the property of late Gafoor is the Class I heir of Gafoor and Gulam Rasool, Mohd. Farooq, Kaloo and Bundu are the residuaries of Gafoor and they are class-II heirs of later Gafoor. It is well settled that the wife is not a residuary Section 66 deals with 'Return' and it provides that if there is a residue left after satisfying the claims of sharers but there is no residuary, the residue reverts to the sharers in proportion to their shares. This right of reverter is technically called 'return' or Radd. The exception clause of Section 66 provides that neither the husband nor the wife is entitled to the Return so long as there is any other heir, whether he be a sharer or a Distant Kinsman. But if there be no other heir, the residue will go to the husband or the wife, as the case may be, by return.Thus, in this case as there are residuries Mst. Bannu being the wife of Gafoor is not entitled for return or Radd. Her shares as per table on page 66-A of the Text book 'Mulla's Principles of Mohomedan law', Eighteenth Edition, comes to 1/4th as she is having no child or child of a son and therefore, the remaining 3/4th share of the property must be devolve on the residuries. Her shares as per table on page 66-A of the Text book 'Mulla's Principles of Mohomedan law', Eighteenth Edition, comes to 1/4th as she is having no child or child of a son and therefore, the remaining 3/4th share of the property must be devolve on the residuries. As per Section 118 of the Mahomedan Law, Gafoor could have made a testamentary disposition of his property upto one third of his surplus after the payment of funeral expenses and debts. l/4th + ⅓rd comes to 7/12. The rest of the shares 5/12 is to be distributed amongst the residuaries. Gafoor's residuaries in this case are : plaintiff-respondent Bundu, Gulam Rasool, Mohd. Farooq and kaloor and Mohd. Farooq and Kaloor have already pleaded no objection if the succession certificate regarding property of Gafoor is granted in favour of Bundu. Thus, only Gulam Rasool has objected to it. He has only 1/4th share in the shares of the residuaries, which comes to 5/48 and the remaining 15/48 shares must go to the share of Bundu. It is admitted case of the parties that Mst. Bannu has already been paid the amount of Gratuity of Rs. 6700/-. It may be called here that Bundu is also entided to ⅓rd share in the property of Gafoor on the basis of the Will and he is also entitled to 15/48 share in the property of Gafoor as a residuary. Thus, in all he is entitled to 31/48 share in the property left by Gafoor Rs. 6700/- have already been paid to Mst. Bannu. Bundu has already spent Rs. 2500/- on the funeral expenses and, therefore if a succession certificate for the receipt of the amount of gratuity of Rs. 3200/- as also the amount of bonus of Rs. 700/- is granted in favour of Bundu, he is very much entided to it on the basis of the will as also on the basis of his share as per the provisions of Mohomadan Law. I, therefore, feel that the learned Lower Court was perfectly justified in allowing the plaintiff-respondent to withdraw this amount from the employer of Gafoor.In the result, I find no force in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed with costs. *******