JUDGMENT B. P. DAS, J. — This revision is directed against the order dated 5th January, 2002 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Baripada in Succession Misc. Appeal No. 2/27 of 2001-97 upholding the order dated 3.10.97 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karanjia in Succession Misc. Case No. 5/96 allowing the prayer of the appli¬cant-Md. Nabi i.e., the predecessor-in-interest of the present opposite parties and directing to grant succession certificate in favour of the aforesaid applicant. 2. The petitioner, who claims to be the foster son of the deceased Sk. Sahadulla and his widow, objected to the grant of such succession certificate to Mohammad Nabi, the natural brother of the deceased Sk. Sahadulla, i.e., the predecessor-in-interest of the present opposite parties on the ground that no succession certificate can be granted as the said application do not come within the scope and ambit of Section 372 of the Indian Succes¬sion Act, 1925 (for short ‘the Act’). In this context it is contended before this Court on behalf of the petitioner that the seized ornaments can by no stretch of imagination be construed as a ‘debt’, as it has been used in Section 370 of the Act. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Dina Nath v. Balkrishna reported in AIR 1963 Allahabad 46 wherein the follow¬ing observations were made : “(7) Having regard to the wide definition of the word debt given above it will appear that the refund of the ornaments, recovered from the person of the dead lady, became an obligation on the authorities to hand over the same or their value to the rightful claimant of the deceased. For such a liability an appli¬cation for a succession certificate could be made in law and should not have been refused. The Courts below in granting a certificate for the refund of the cash only and refusing to grant a succession certificate for the return of the valuables erred in putting a correct interpretation on the word ‘debt’ which has been used in Section 370 of the Indian Succession Act. It was a fit case in which a succession certificate should have been granted. The order passed by the Courts below must, therefore, be modified." 3. It was a fit case in which a succession certificate should have been granted. The order passed by the Courts below must, therefore, be modified." 3. The facts of the case cited above, are some way similar to the case at hand. In the case cited above, succession certifi¬cate was applied for by the legal heirs. 4. Be that as it may, it is well settled that grant of Succession Certificate is more or less by way of an interim ar¬rangement and the person who withdraws any money on the basis of the Succession Certificate, does so as a trustee on behalf of the person entitled to succeed to such property and such entitlement has to be decided by any competent Court of law in a properly constituted suit. Law is well settled that any determination made in proceeding in grant of Succession Certificate does not finally determine the rights of the parties. (See : AIR 1999 Orissa 182, Joginath Gochhi and another v. Sudhakar Pati and others). 5. Aforesaid being the position, on perusal of the im¬pugned order, I do not find any merit in the present revision application. While dismissing the revision application, I direct that issue of succession certificate is subject to property security at par with the value of the ornaments seized. Petition dismissed.