JUDGMENT This revision under section 115 of CPC is directed against the order dated 12.5.2000, passed by VII ADJ, Bhopal, in M.A. No. 11/2000 reversing the order dated 25.9.1999 passed by VI Civil Judge Class-I, Bhopal, in MJC No. 304/98 granting succession certificate in favour of the petitioners. Petitioner Dhannalal, Dayaram and Laxmibai respectively are brothers and sister of late Phoolchand. Phoolchand was employed as Field Man in the office of Assistant Agricultural Engineering Workshop (Putligarh), Bhopal. Phoolchand was unmarried and died on 11.5.1996. The gratuity amount of Rs. 32,728/-, amount of leave encashment (surrendered) Rs. 1,748/-, amount of CPF and GIC Rs. 1,00,000/-, amount of GPF Rs. 33,053/- since is required to be realised from the respondents, petitioners filed application under section 372 of Indian Succession Act (for short 'the Act') before VI Civil Judge Class-I, Bhopal. It was registered as MJC No. 304/98. On being noticed, the respondents appeared before the Court and resisted the claim on the ground that the petitioner being real brother and sister do not fall under the category of family as defined under the provisions of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, therefore, they are not entitled to receive the benefits. However, the Civil Judge, vide order dated 25.9.1999 allowing the application under section 372, directed issuance of succession certificate in respect of the aforesaid sum in favour of the petitioners. Being aggrieved, respondents preferred MA No. 11/00 before the VII ADJ, Bhopal. The Court below, vide impugned· order dated 12.5.2000, held that petitioners being brothers and sister, do not fall under the category of the family as defined under the provisions of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Accordingly, allowing the appeal, dismissed the application for succession certificate. It is admitted that late Phoolchand was real brother of petitioners Dhannalal, Dayaram and Laxmi Bai. He was unmarried and died on 11.5.1996. The dues from respondents are required to be recovered. Rule 45 of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rule, 1976 is as under: 45. Persons to whom. gratuity is payable -- (1) (a) The gratuity payable under clause (b) of sub-rule (I} or sub-rule (2) 44 shall be paid to the person or persons on whom the right to receive the gratuity is conferred by means of a nomination under rule 46. Persons to whom. gratuity is payable -- (1) (a) The gratuity payable under clause (b) of sub-rule (I} or sub-rule (2) 44 shall be paid to the person or persons on whom the right to receive the gratuity is conferred by means of a nomination under rule 46. (b) If there is no such nomination or if the nomination made does not" subsist, the gratuity shall be paid to the legal heirs of the Government servant. (2) If a Government servant dies after retirement without receiving the gratuity admissible under clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of rule 44 the gratuity shall be disbursed to the legal heirs in the manner indicated in clause (b) of sub-rule (1j. Rule 46 deals with the nomination by the Government servant. Admittedly, there had been no nomination by late Phoo1chand. Therefore, with reference to rule 45, the petitioners being legal heirs of late Phoo1chand are entitled to realize the dues from the respondents. The Civil Judge in MJC No. 304/98, vide order dated 25.9.1999, rightly directed issuance of succession certificate in their favour. However, the Court below erred in allowing the appeal and dismissing the application under section 372 of the Act. Consequently, revision succeeds and is allowed. Setting aside the impugned order passed by VII ADJ, Bhopal, in MA No. 11/2000, the order dated 25.9.1999 passed by VI Civil Judge Class-I, Bhopal, in MJC No. 304/98 granting succession certificate in favour of the petitioners is restored. Parties to bear their costs. Counsel fee as per rules or certificate (whichever is less).