JUDGMENT V. K. Mehrotra, J.—One Achhar Dass was an employee of the Himachal Pradesh Tourism Department. He died on April 29, 1979. A sum of Rs. 3,130 stood to his credit in his provident fund account No. HGA 6587. A sum of Rs. 3,408 became payable to his family or nominees as death-cum-retirement gratuity on his death. The State Government also sanctioned payment of an ex-gratia grant of Rs. 5,000 to him. 2. Sarju Devi as the widow of Achhar Dass together with their sons Sant Ram, Mani Ram and daughters Shakuntala, Nirmala and Hima filed a petition (registered as Case No. 7/2 of 1979) for the grant of succession certificate in respect of the above amounts on November 29, 1979. 3. After notice was issued to the general public on the application aforesaid, Smt Shanti Devi filed objections. In it, she claimed that she was the widow of Achhar Dass and had two children from him, namely, a son Ashok Kumar and a daughter Asha Rani. She further claimed that it was she alone alongwith her children from Achhar Dass, who was entitled to succeed to the amount of provident fund and other amounts payable upon the death of Achhar Dass. 4. The petition came to be heard by the learned Senior Sub-Judge (with delegated powers of District Judge), Solan and was decided on May 14, 1982 The learned Judge held that out of the petitioners, namely, Sarju Devi and her children from the deceased, only the two daughters, namely, Shakuntla and Nirmala were competent to receive the amount of death-cum-retirement gratuity. All the petitioners were, however, held entitled to the grant of succession certificate in respect of the amount of provident fund. The application for grant of certificate in relation to the amount of ex-gratia grant was, however, dismissed. The issuance of succession certificate in respect of the provident fund amount was made conditional upon this persons entitled to receive the amount furnishing an indemnity bond in the sum pf Rs. 4,0U0 and a bond with one surety for the same amount. Similarly, the persons found entitled to receive the amount of death-cum-retirement gratuity were also required to furnish bond for a sum of Rs 4,000 with one surety, Aggrieved Smt. Shanti Devi and her children Ashok Kumar and Asha Rani filed the present appeal under section 384 of the Indian Succession Act (briefly the Act). 5. Similarly, the persons found entitled to receive the amount of death-cum-retirement gratuity were also required to furnish bond for a sum of Rs 4,000 with one surety, Aggrieved Smt. Shanti Devi and her children Ashok Kumar and Asha Rani filed the present appeal under section 384 of the Indian Succession Act (briefly the Act). 5. The fact that Smt. Sarju Devi was the legally wedded wife of Achhar Dass and that Sant Ram and Mani Ram were the sons while Shakuntala, Nirmala and Hima were the daughters of Smt Sarju Devi from him has not been disputed on behalf of Shanti Devi and her children. What was pleaded on their behalf was that Shanti Devi was also a legally wedded wife of Achhar Dass having been married to him at Delhi before the commencement of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and that the two children were born out of that wed-lock. Ashok Kumar was the sole nominee of Achhar Dass in the provident fund account. Also, that Shanti Devi, Ashok Kumar and Asha Rani had also been mentioned as his nominees by Achhar Dass in respect of death-cum-retirement gratuity alongwith Shakuntala and Nir mala the daughters from Sarju Devi by the deceased. As such, the succession certificate could be issued only in favour of Ashok Kumar in respect of the amount of provident fund while in respect of the amount of death cum-retirement gratuity it can be issued in favour of Shakuntala and Nirmala alongwith Ashok Kumar, Asha Rani and herself, that is, the three objectors. 6. The fact that Shanti Devi was also the legally wedded wife of Achhar Dass was seriously disputed on behalf of Sarju Devi and the other applicants for the grant of succession certificate. Parties, therefore, led evidence on this aspect as well. The learned Senior Sub Judge, on consideration of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the marriage of Shanti Devi with Achhar Dass was not proved. If Achhar Dass had been living with Shanti Devi in adultery, it would not make the marriage valid. Further, even if it was presumed that Achhar Dass married Shanti Devi, he married her after coming into force of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and at a time when he had already a living wife. If Achhar Dass had been living with Shanti Devi in adultery, it would not make the marriage valid. Further, even if it was presumed that Achhar Dass married Shanti Devi, he married her after coming into force of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and at a time when he had already a living wife. Consequently, the marriage of Shanti Devi with him was illegal The nomination, therefore, in favour of Ashok Kumar in the provident fund or, for that matter, of Shanti Devi alongwith her two children in regard to the death-cum-retirement gratuity was of no avail because under the provisions of General Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules, 1960, where the subscriber has a family at the time of making the nomination, he could only make the nomination in favour of a member or members of his family as defined in Rule 2 (c) : "(i) in the case of a male subscriber, the wife or wives and children of a subscriber, and the widow, or widows and children of a deceased son of the subscriber; " 7. Chapter X of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, deals with succession certificates. Section 372 provides for an application for grant of certificate. Section 373 lays down the procedure of an application under section 372. It reads thus:— “373. Procedure on application.—(1) If the District Judge is satisfied that there is ground for entertaining the application, he shall fix a day for the hearing thereof and cause notice of the application and of the day fixed for the hearing — (a) to be served on any person to whom, in the opinion of the Judge, special notice of the application should be given, and (b) to be posted on some conspicuous part of the court-house and published in such other manner, if any, as the Judge, subject to any rules made by the High Court in this behalf, thinks fit, and upon the day fixed or as soon thereafter as may be practicable, shall proceed to decide in a summary manner the right to the certificate. (2) When the Judge decides the right thereto to belong to the applicant, the Judge shall make an order for the grant of the certificate to him. (2) When the Judge decides the right thereto to belong to the applicant, the Judge shall make an order for the grant of the certificate to him. (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, he may nevertheless grant a certificate to the applicant if he appears to be the person having prima facie the best title thereto. (4) When there are more applicants than one for a certificate, and it appears to the Judge that more than one of such applicants are interested in the estate of the deceased, the Judge may in deciding to whom the certificate is to be granted, have regard to the extent of interest and the fitness in other respects of the applicants." Section 384, which provides for appeal says that: "384. Appeal—(Y) Subject to the other provisions of this Part, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order of a District Judge granting, refusing or revoking a certificate under this Part, and the High Court may, if it thinks fit, by its order on the appeal, declare the person to whom the certificate should be granted and direct the District Judge, on application being made therefor, to grant it accordingly, in supersession of the certificate, if any, already granted. (2) (3) * * * *• Section 387, occurring in the same Chapter, then says: "387. Effect of decisions under this Act, and liability of holder of certificate thereunder.—No decision under this Part upon any question of right between any parties shall be held to bar the trial of the same question to any suit or in any other proceeding between the same parties, and nothing in this part shall be construed to affect the liability of any person who may receive the whole or any part of any debt or security, or any interest or dividend on any security, to account thereof to the person lawfully entitled thereto." 8. It is settled law that proceedings upon an application for grant of succession certificate are of a summary character. It is settled law that proceedings upon an application for grant of succession certificate are of a summary character. A decision recorded in these proceedings upon any question of a right between any party does not operate as a bar to the trial of the same question in any suit or any other proceedings between the same parties. In other words, the decision does not operate as res-judicata. 9. Section 373 (3^ provides in terms that even in a case in which the Judge feels that a decision about the right to the certificate depends upon determination of questions of law or fact which seem to be too intricate and difficult for determination in a summary proceeding, he may nevertheless grant a certificate to the applicant if he appears to be the person having prima facie the best title thereto. The High Court may, as is clear from section 384 (1), by its order on an appeal declare the person to whom the certificate should be granted and direct the District Judge, on an application being made therefor, to grant it accordingly in supersession of a certificate already granted. 10. It is implicit in these provisions that in a case where the right of an applicant before the District Judge to the grant of a certificate is challenged by an objector, who puts forward a competing or complementary claim to the grant thereof, the Judge has to examine the claims in a prima facie manner. In other words, the case put forward by an objector is also to be viewed in the same manner in which the case of the applicant for the grant is seen. The standard is to be the same for both. The objector, setting up a claim in himself as well, can also be declared to be a person to whom the certificate should be granted by the District Judge on an application being made therefor. The burden of proof upon the objector, in respect of a claim made by him, is no different from that cast by law upon the claimant who makes the application for grant of succession certificate in the first instance. 11. The burden of proof upon the objector, in respect of a claim made by him, is no different from that cast by law upon the claimant who makes the application for grant of succession certificate in the first instance. 11. In the present case objector Shanti Devi, appellant before this Court, entered into the witness box as RW-L She deposed on oath about her marriage with deceased Achhar Dass in Kalka Mandir at Delhi according to their custom and Hindu Reet. She averred that Havan was done and Jaimala was exchanged and further that a Pandit named Shastri Ji cited mantras. She also stated that she remained the wedded wife of deceased Achhar Dass from the time of her marriage and lived with him as his wife till his death. She was cross-examined by a counsel on behalf of the original claimants at some length. During it, she faltered in matter of details to some extent. However, she reiterated that her marriage was solemnized according to Dharamshaster in the Mandir. She frankly stated that she had no documentary proof about the solemnization of her marriage with Achhar Dass but undertook to produce the Pandit who had done so. 12. RW 7, Chet Ram, was the Pandit who claimed to have solemnized the marriage of Achhar Dass with Shanti Devi. He stated on oath about it. He too was cross-examined at great length on behalf of the applicants for the grant of certificate. 13. A perusal of the statements of Smt. Shanti Devi and Chet Ram, which have not been accepted by the learned Senior Sub-Judge, would show that what they have stated is sufficient to conclude, prima facie, that Smt. Shanti Devi was married to Achhar Dass according to custom and Hindu Reet. 14. It is true that on enclose an examination of the evidence, as has been made by the learned Senior Sub-Judge, their evidence may not be characterised as flawless, yet, having regard to the ambit of enquiry contemplated in these summary proceedings, it is difficult to uphold the view of the learned Judge that the testimony of these witnesses does not establish that Shanti Devi was married to deceased Achhar Dass in the manner alleged by her even prima facie* 15. As held by me, the case of objector Shanti Devi was also to be examined in a prima facie manner The conclusion, on such examination, from the evidence adduced on behalf of Shanti Devi clearly is that she was married to deceased Achhar Dass before the enforcement of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is difficult to uphold the conclusion to the contrary, recorded by the learned Senior Sub-Judge. Disagreeing with the conclusion of the learned Senior Sub-Judge I hold that the evidence in the case establishes the fact that Shanti Devi was married to Achhar Dass prior to the commencement of the Hindu Marriage Act and that Ashok Kumar and Asha Devi were the two children who were born out of that wedlock. On the finding aforesaid it is not necessary to consider the further submission made on behalf of the appellants that even if it be held that the marriage of Shanti Devi with late Achhar Dass was void, being in violation of section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the two children born out of that union would have rights in the property of the parents by virtue of section 16 (1) and (3) of the Act, 16. The trial Judge has directed issuance of succession certificate only in favour of respondents or some of them. This direction is founded upon an erroneous view that Shanti Devi and her children were not entitled to the grant of the certificate. The view, in that regard, of the learned Senior Sub-Judge has not been founded to be correct in law. As such, the direction issued by him deserves to be and is modified with the consequential declaration that apart from Sarju Devi and the children of Achhar Dass from her, Shanti Devi and her children, born out of her wedlock with late Shri Achhar Dass, were also entitled to the grant of succession certificate to the estate of late Achhar Dass. 17. The appeal is allowed to the extent aforesaid and the matter is sent back to the learned District Judge, Solan, for granting succession certificate, on an application being made therefor, to the present appellants (original objectors) together with the respondents (original applicants) in accordance with law, in supersession of the certificate granted to the respondents on account of order dated May 14, 1982 under challenge in this appeal. The learned District Judge will take the final decision after notice to the parties. 18. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case I leave the parties to bear their own costs in this appeal which shall stand allowed as aforesaid. Appeal allowed -