JUDGMENT The appellant had made a prayer to the Court for the purpose of granting succession certificate for the purpose of claiming the amount of Rs. 9,000/- which was pending in the Provident Fund Department of Rajkumar Mill, Indore, since 1953. The claim of the appellant is mainly on the basis of Ex. P-1 and P-2 his own evidence coupled with the evidence of PW-2 Sagarmal and PW-3 Rameshwar. By pointing-out this Smt. Waghmare submitted that in view of Rule 61 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as Scheme, for convenience) the appellant is the only person to get succession certificate for the purpose of claiming that amount which is payable with interest at appropriate rate. Shri Bohra submitted that respondent No. 3 Surajdeen happens to be the father of the appellant and he did not have resistance for the claim preferred by the appellant for getting the succession certificate in respect of the payment of the said amount from the concerned department of Rajkumar Mill, Indore. Rule No. 61 -- sub- rule 5 makes it clear that the employee can during his lifetime change is nomination as he found it necessary. What has to do is to give· the information and make request to the concerned authorities by giving information and making request in form No. 8. So far as present marriage is concerned, Ex. P-2 is the same form. Smt. Waghmare submitted that the said form has been filled-in by deceased during his lifetime and in that form he has made a prayer to the concerned authorities and had informed it that he had nominated Kanahiyalal as his nominee in respect of the amount payable to him of his LRs after his death, in view of the appropriate rules of the scheme. Ex. P-1 shows that earlier to that, deceased Jagannath has nominated his wife Subhadrabai as nominee for the purpose of getting the said amount in the event of his death. The endorsement on the backside of Ex. P-2 shows that under the signature, deceased Jagannath had endorsed that his wife had already expired. When this endorsement is on the backside of Ex P-2 and Ex P-2 bears the date "4.12.72" the same date will have to be taken as the date of endorsement which is on the backside of Ex P-2. P-2 shows that under the signature, deceased Jagannath had endorsed that his wife had already expired. When this endorsement is on the backside of Ex P-2 and Ex P-2 bears the date "4.12.72" the same date will have to be taken as the date of endorsement which is on the backside of Ex P-2. It is not disputed that deceased Jagannath was alive in the year 1972 because the record itself shows that deceased Jagannath died on 21.4.75. Needless to say that prior to 1972 the wife of deceased Subhadrabai had expired. PW-1 Shri Sharma has stated in his evidence that during the life-time of Jagannath had nominated the present appellant as his nominee by filling-in form No. 8. His evidence shows that the concerned department did not make appropriate entry in that context only because deceased Jagannath had not submitted the death certificate of his wife Subhadrabai who was nominated as his nominee in the year 1953. The evidence of PW-4 Sagarmal shows that the appellant was nominated by deceased Jagannath as his nominee. Evidence of PW-4 Ramdayal, shows that respondent No. 4 who claimed to be the wife of deceased Jagannath, was having a daughter namely Madhubala who was studying in Asha Kala Kendra, Mhow. The evidence of PW-4 shows that name of father of Madhubala, who was born in the year 1953, was Kishore. The certificate which has been granted by Asha Kala Kendra Ex. P-6 shows that husband of respondent No. 4 was Kishore and not Jagannath. When respondent No. 4 is making a claim over the said amount as wife of deceased Jagannath, the onus lay on her to prove that she was a legally wedded wife of deceased Jagannath. The service book which is on record is also not showing that she was at any time the wife of deceased Jagannath, on the contrary it shows that she was wife of Kishore. It is pertinent to note here that respondent No. 4 had not taken any steps for the purpose of changing the name of her husband by putting the name of deceased Jagannath and deleting the name of Kishore. She did not bring any evidence on record to show that she had taken divorce from that Kishore who was earlier shown to be her husband. The appellant was making a claim for the said amount as nominee of deceased Jagannath. She did not bring any evidence on record to show that she had taken divorce from that Kishore who was earlier shown to be her husband. The appellant was making a claim for the said amount as nominee of deceased Jagannath. He has adduced necessary evidence in support of it. The only person who was resisting the claim was respondent No.4. She has not produced any acceptable evidence to show that she was at any time married with deceased Jagannath. In the absence of that her claim will have to be dismissed. The learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence properly and therefore mainly in recording the finding against the appellant and rejecting the prayer for granting succession certificate in respect of claim of the amount which the deceased Jagannath was to receive from Rajkumar Mill, Indore. The learned Judge should have granted such prayer of the appellant on payment of necessary court-fee. The learned trial Judge has committed an error in granting such succession certificate to respondent No. 4 without any prayer made by her. Thus the impugned order will have to be set aside as incorrect, improper and illegal. Thus the appeal is allowed. Order is set aside. It is declared that the appellant is entitled to get succession certificate as nominee of deceased Jagannath in respect of the amount which deceased Jagannath was to receive from the Provident Fund department of Rajkumar Mill, Indore. He is entitled to get the said amount with appropriate interest in view of the Ex. P-2. The concerned department of Rajkumar Mill, Indore, is directed to make necessary entries in all necessary registers showing the appellant as legal nominee of deceased Jagannath. The said succession certificate be granted to him on payment of necessary Court fee as per the law in existence. By allowing this appeal the order which has been passed by Shri N.H. Khan, 5th Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore, in the matter of Succession Case No. 33/84 stands modified so as to clearly the situation, though a separate judgment in passed for deciding MA No. 148/88 which is connected with the said Succession Case No. 33/84. This note has been made in the record of this appeal because the learned Judge passed a common order deciding both the matters. This note has been made in the record of this appeal because the learned Judge passed a common order deciding both the matters. No order as to costs of this appeal because majority of the respondents are a dead. Thus the appeal stands disposed of.