JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed under Section 384, Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter called 'the Act') against the order of the learned District Judge, Dholpur dated February 18., 1991 by which he has allowed the application of the respondent Bhoop Singh moved under Section 372 of the Act and ordered for the issue of succession certificate in his favour in respect of the amount of gratuity of late Keshav Singh. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus. 2. Keshav Singh was in the service of the State of Rajasthan as a teacher. Till his death, he was a bachelor. He left no nomination in respect of his amount of gratuity. His parents died during his life-time. His brother Bhoop Singh moved an application under Section 372, of the Act for obtaining succession certificate in respect of the gratuity amount of Rs. 18,907/-. In this application, Smt. Asha and Badam Singh were shown as the widow of Sunder Singh (brother of Keshav Singh) and cousin respectively. The application was opposed by Pintoo and Kale, sons of late Sunder Singh through Smt. Asha Devi. After framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties, the learned District Judge allowed the application by his order dated February 18; 1991. 3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the learned District Judge seriously erred to grant succession certificate to the petitioner-respondent Bhoop Singh as neither he was a member of the family of Keshav Singh as defined in Rule 260, Rajasthan Service Rules nor a nomination was left in the favour by the deceased. In support of his contention, he relied upon Memo No. F. 7A (46) FD.A/Rules/59 dated January 02, 1961 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 4. In reply, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent that the petitioner Bhoop Singh was the only preferential heir, he was entitled to get the succession certificate and the learned District Judge has rightly granted the succession certificate to him. 5. Admittedly, application under Section 372 of the Act has been moved in respect of the gratuity amount of Rs. 18,907/-. 5. Admittedly, application under Section 372 of the Act has been moved in respect of the gratuity amount of Rs. 18,907/-. The provisions of Sections 370, 372 and 214 of the Act make it clear that a succession certificate can be granted only in respect of the property of a deceased person which goes to his heirs. According to Section II of Chapter XXII of the Rajasthan Service Rules, gratuity of a deceased Government servant who had become eligible for it is payable to the person or persons on whom the right to receive the gratuity is conferred under Rule 260. Rule 260 defines "family" as under: "260. Family defined.-(1) For the purpose of this rule- (a) "Family" shall include the following relatives of the officer- (i) wife, in the case of a male officer; (ii) husband, in the case of a female officer; (iii) sons; (iv) unmarried and widowed daughters; (v) brothers below the age of 18 years and unmarried or widowed sisters; (vi) father, and, (vii) mother. Note:-(iii) and (iv) will include step-children." The statement of the petitioner-respondent was recorded by the learned District Judge on 07.07.88. At that time, he disclosed his age to be 63 years. As such he was not a member of his "family", being over 18 years of age. The Memo No. F. 71 (46) FD. A/Rules/59 dated January 02, 1961 of the Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur runs as under : "A question arose as to whom the amount of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity should be paid where a Government servant, who died while in service left behind no family as defined in Rule 260 of the Rajasthan Service Rules and had also not made any nomination. The question was examined and it is hereby clarified that the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity being of the nature of a gift is payable only to the Government servant himself or in the event of his death, to members of his family, in accordance with Rule 260 of the Rajasthan Service Rules. Where a Government servant dies without leaving behind any family, the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity cannot, in the absence of a valid nomination made by the deceased officer, be claimed by any other person as of right and is ordinarily granted to none. Where a Government servant dies without leaving behind any family, the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity cannot, in the absence of a valid nomination made by the deceased officer, be claimed by any other person as of right and is ordinarily granted to none. Government may, however, grant the gratuity to any person who was dependent on the deceased Government servant for support, if such a course is considered justified on compassionate " grounds." In view of these facts and circumstances, it is clear that the petitioner-respondent Bhoop Singh was not entitled to get succession certificate in respect of the amount of said gratuity. As such the appeal deserves to be allowed. In pursuance of the order dated January 22, 1993 passed in Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 107/91, succession certificate might have been issued to the petitioner-respondent on his furnishing security for the restitution of the said amount of gratuity and he might also have withdrawn the amount of gratuity. He has to refund it. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with costs. The order of the learned District Judge, Dholpur dated February 18,'1991 is set aside. The petitioner-respondent is directed to refund the amount, if withdrawn by him, with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. If the a ount withdrawn is deposited within two months from today, he would not be liable make payment of interest.Appeal allowed. *******