Judgment This First Appeal has been preferred u/s 384 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, and is directed against the Judgement and order dated 22-12-2003 passed by Sri Kanta Prasad, the then learned Additional District Judge/Second Fast Track Court, Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Brief facts of the case are that one Bhuwan Chandra Kandpal died on 12-01-1999. The appellant Devki Devi is the mother of the deceased and respondent no. 2 Smt. Indu.Kandpai is the widow of the deceased. At the time of his death, Bhuwan Chpildra Kandpal was serving as a Havaldar with section 9, Independent Mountain brig. OMP (GV) 56 A A.P.O. After his death both the appellant and respondent no. 2 moved two separate applications under sections , 372/373 Indian Succession Act, 1925 before the learned District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar for succession certificate to facilitate them for receiving the provident fund dues, gratuity and insurance etc. of the deceased. Both the applications were taken up together. The learned Additional District Judge disposed of both the applications by common impugned judgement whereby the application of the widow of the deceased was allowed with the condition that the widow of the deceased shall submit a bond before the concerned authority that in case the mother of the deceased was found entitled to half share of the dues, the same shall be paid to her if she gets declaration to that effect from the Civil Court. Simultaneously the application of the mother Smt. Devki Devi (appellant) was rejected. Aggrieved by the said judgement and order this appeal has been preferred by her. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Admittedly Smt. Indu Kandpal (respondent no. 2) got marred to Bhuwan Chandra Kandpal (deceased) on 12-1-1999 It is also not disputed that a divorce petition was filed by the deceased against the respondent no. 2. It is also denied that the appellant is the mother of the deceased. The sole question for consideration before the court was as to who is entitled to succession certificate from amongst mother and widow of the deceased. From the evidence on record, the learned trial court found that the name of the wife was mentioned as nominee by the deceased in provident fund papers. As such in view of the fact respondent no. From the evidence on record, the learned trial court found that the name of the wife was mentioned as nominee by the deceased in provident fund papers. As such in view of the fact respondent no. 2 was nominee and also one of the heirs of the deceased of grade I under Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the succession certificate was rightly issued in her favour, 5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the mother of the deceased is also equal shareholder with respondent no.2 under Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as such for 50% of the dues, succession certificate should have been issued in her favour. I am unable to agree with the Submission for the reason that succession certificate is not determination of rights as to the shares between heirs. Rather, it is third party discharge as to the payment due to the deceased. Whether it is payment of provident fund dues or any other dues to which the deceased would have been entitled, can be paid to the nominee or a person holding succession certificate. This payment or issuance of succession certificate does not debar other heirs of the deceased from claiming the amount of their shares from the person who received the dues. 6. It is true that the deceased was litigating with the respondent no. 2 and his divorce petition was pending at the time of his death as against respondent no. 2. Not only this there appears to be a litigation under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; 1973 in which the respondent no. 2 was getting Rs. 350/- per month as maintenance from the deceased. But that by itself does not bar his wife as divorce was not granted before his death and as such widow has her claim not only as nominee but also as heir under 'Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that poor mother (appellant) is not getting anything on the death of her son. As I have discussed above, by issuance of certificate, the appellant is not deprived from getting her share. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that poor mother (appellant) is not getting anything on the death of her son. As I have discussed above, by issuance of certificate, the appellant is not deprived from getting her share. Merely for the reason that she was one of the heirs and could have been issued succession certificate under clause 4 of section 373 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, it cannot be said that the widow should not have been issued the succession certificate particularly when she was nominee for payment of provident fund apart from the provisions contained under Rule 4 of Army Pension Rules in her favour. 8. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed with the observations that the appellant may claim her share by filing a civil suit in respect of the amount received by respondent no. 2, against her as observed by the learned trial court in the impugned judgement. No order as to costs.