Honble VERMA, J.–The appellant is a married daughter of Jodhraj and has come up in this misc. appeal against the order dated 23.5.2000 passed by the District Judge, Sikar in Civil Case No. 47/97 on the application filed by the respondent Pitharam u/S. 372 of the Hindu Succession Act. (2). Pitharam is the father of deceased Jodhraj. He on his behalf and on behalf of his wife i.e. mother of Jodhraj, Jadavdevi had filed the application for grant of succession certificate for claiming the gratuity of Rs. 87, 200/-and GPF of Rs. 20, 000/-being the father of the deceased. The deceased Jodhraj was an employee of Rajasthan State Electricity Board. He died on 22.2.1997.At the time of death of Jodhraj he had only one living married daughter i.e. the appellant Subhita and was living with her husband Phool Chand with her in laws. It was the case of the respondent Pitharam that he was living with the son and was dependent on him and even though no nomination had been made by deceased Jodhraj for payment of the gratuity and other funds in his official record, but as per Regulation 28 and 44 of the Employees Pension Regulation, 1998 and Employees General Provident Fund Regulations, 1988, the married daughter was not entitled to receive any funds after the death of her father. It was stated that only unmarried daughter, father and mother were entitled to receive such gratuity. (3). During the pendency of the application before the District Judge, his wife Jadav Devi (mother of the employee) had died on 15.9.1998. (4). On the notice having been issued, the present appellant had filed the objections and has stated that the deceased, her father had during his life time executed a will dated 21.1.1997 in her favour which was a registered will and in accordance with the `will, the moveable and immoveable property of Jodhraj had been bequeathed to her being the only living legal heir. (5). Issues were framed in regard to entitlement of receiving the amount and also about the validity of the will and further whether under the Regulation 28 and 44, the married daughter was entitled to receive the benefits. (5). Issues were framed in regard to entitlement of receiving the amount and also about the validity of the will and further whether under the Regulation 28 and 44, the married daughter was entitled to receive the benefits. The trial Court had believed the execution of the will and held that the will was valid but relying on the regulations had granted the succession certificate in favour of the father of the deceased holding that despite the existence of the will in favour of the daughter, the appellant cannot be treated as a legal heir of her deceased father. (6). The above-said order has been challenged before this court. (7). Notice was issued and Shri Ved Prakash accepted the notice on behalf of the respondent. Both the counsel for the parties requested that the matter can be decided finally today and, therefore, arguments were heard. (8). It is the contention of the appellant that Regulations are not applicable in the presence of the will in favour of the appellant and it is to be deemed that only living legal heir is as good as nomination for receipt of all moveable and immoveable property. It is further submitted that in the absence of the nominations made by her father, she is entitled to receive the moveable and immoveable property on the basis of the will which has been held by the trial court to be a valid will. (9). Per contra, it is argued by the counsel for the respondent that the regulations should have preference over the statutory provisions of the Hindu Succession Act and invites attention to the regulations of the Employees Pension Regulations and Employees Provident Fund Regulations, 1988, framed by the RSEB. Regulation 28 defines the family for the purpose i.e. family includes relation of the officer, wife, husband, sons, unmarried and widowed daughters, father, mother and includes step children, if legally adopted for the purpose of nomination. Rule 44 specifies that if the particular employee dies before the actual retirement, his heirs shall have no claim in respect of his pension except to the extent and subject to the conditions specified in the regulations i.e. his legal heirs would be entitled to the benefit of gratuity, if admissible, under the rules. (10). The above-said definition has been mentioned in the Employees Pension Regulations, 1988. (11). (10). The above-said definition has been mentioned in the Employees Pension Regulations, 1988. (11). However, in Employees General Provident Fund Regulations, 1988, family has been defined as wife, children (whether married or unmarried) and the dependent parents of the subscriber under clause (q) of Regulation 3. Regulation 17 prescribes that the subscriber is to nominate a person in form 2 of the members of the family and nomination can be in favour of one or more persons belonging to his family. Regulation 44 prescribes that on the death of the subscriber before amount standing to his credit has become payable or where the amount has become payable before payment has been made, the amount of the credit of the subscribers account shall become payable as follows i.e. i) if he has nominated any person to such nominee and if no nomination has been made then it shall become payable to the members of the family of the deceased subscriber in equal share provided that no share shall be payable to the major sons or sons of the deceased or the married daughters with living husbands etc. (12). Sub-rule (4) of Rule 45 prescribes that if no nomination subsists and payment cannot be made as per RSEB Employees General Provident Fund Reg., in that case the payment shall be arranged only after production of the succession certificate. (13). It is not disputed that the parties are governed by the Hindu Succession Act and under the aforesaid Act, the daughter is Class I heir to inherit the property left by the father. The father had executed a `will in her favour. The `will has been held to be a valid `will. A statutory right had been conferred on the daughter to inherit the property of her father, irrespective of the fact whether the daughter is married or unmarried, under the Hindu Succession Act and in the present case under the `will as well. If there is a valid will, the beneficiary is to acquire the benefit of that will, as that depicts the intention of the testator of the `will. If there is a valid will, the beneficiary is to acquire the benefit of that will, as that depicts the intention of the testator of the `will. The father of the appellant Jodhraj had categorically executed a will in favour of daughter bequeathing on her all moveable or immoveable property and that will is deemed to include all cash benefits arising out of the pension, gratuity or provident fund as well and in such situation, the statutory provisions of the Hindu Succession Act and the Transfer of Property Act shall prevail upon the regulations which are only guiding factors for the purpose of disbursement and also a procedure of maintaining the pension, provident fund and gratuity etc., accounts of the employee. (14). Even otherwise, family as defined in Regulation 3(q) does include a married daughter as well and to say that under Regulation 44 in the absence of the nomination, married daughter shall not be entitled to any share at all would itself amount to excluding the married daughter from the definition of family under Regulation 3(q), which shall not be harmoneous in the present case. Regulation 45(4) also provided that if there is no nomination in that situation, the money shall be arranged to be paid after production of succession certificate and the succession certificate can be granted to any heir who is legally entitled to obtain such succession certificate. In my opinion, the learned trial court has erred in law in interpreting the rights conferred by Hindu Succession Act by saying that statutory provisions are subervient to the regulations. Even though married daughter was entitled under the Hindu Succession Act as well, but the execution of the will had given her an additional right to claim the amount. (15). In view of the above said discussion, I allow the appeal at admission stage, set-aside the impugned order of the trial court with the direction that the succession certificate is be granted in favour of the appellant Subhita Wife of Phool Chand Daughter of Late Jodhraj (an employee of RSEB) to claim the amount of gratuity and GPF etc. along with interest which may be accruable and payable. No order as to costs.