JUDGMENT 1. This Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against the order, dtd. 17/3/2010, in I.A.No.556 of 2010 in O.P.No.325 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the I Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry, (in short 'the learned tribunal)" grant leave to the petitioner herein to withdraw an amount of Rs.1,11,843.00 with accrued interest and order to encash the same. 2. The petitioner herein has filed a claim petition seeking compensation for the death of her father-in-law Sanagari Venkata Ramanaiah, who died in a motor accident on 23/4/1994. As per Award an amount of Rs.6,47,372.00 was deposited, in which an amount of Rs.50,000.00 was withdrawn by the deceased husband of the petitioner out of his share of Rs.1,61,843.00 and remaining amount of Rs.1,11,843.00 was invested in fixed deposit. Subsequently during life time of husband of the petitioner filed a petition in I.A.No.1404 of 2003 seeking permission to withdraw his compensation amount, which was allowed in part on 20/8/2003, permitting him to withdraw Rs.50,000.00. In the meantime he died in a train accident on 13/9/2003, due to which the said amount of Rs.50,000.00 was reinvested in fixed deposit, which is lying in the name of deceased husband of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner filed before the learned tribunal seeking to declare the petitioner as sole successor of her deceased husband by impleading a party and she have also obtained succession certificate. 3. The learned tribunal allowed the said application on 17/3/2010 and permitted her with withdraw a sum of Rs.1,11,843.00 by premature encashment of FDR. But no interest is ordered holding that "since the relief is confined only to the amount mentioned in the Succession Certificate and the petitioner has to obtain extension of the Succession Certificate for the remaining amount". Therefore the present revision came to be filed. 4. Heard Mr. P. Rajesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. A. Jayanthi, learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent. 5. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that the court below without appreciating the facts and circumstances on behalf of the petitioner no interest amount has been granted and permitted to withdraw only Rs.1,11,843.00 on the ground that the relief as claimed in the Succession Certificate is only Rs.1,11,843.00 and requires further orders for the remaining amount in the Succession Certificate, which is highly untenable and unreasonable. It is further contended that as per orders of the learned tribunal, the petitioner has obtained Succession Certificate, which is sufficient to prove the bonafide successors of the deceased. Therefore she is entitled for the claim pertaining to the deceased claim in total, but the learned tribunal strangely insisted for further orders in the Succession Certificate and expressed that there is dire necessity for money as the petitioner is starving for existence. Hence revision is liable to be allowed. 6. Whereas, learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent reiterated the contentions urged in before the learned tribunal and contended that basing on the Succession Certificate the learned tribunal permitted her to with draw an amount of Rs.1,11,843.00 and there is no order to claim remaining amount. Therefore the learned tribunal rightly disallowed the petitioner to claim remaining amount. 7. Perused the record. 8. It is apparent on the face of the impugned order that the learned tribunal allowed the petitioner to withdraw an amount of Rs.1,11,843.00 basing on the Succession Certificate submitted by the petitioner. As per the Succession Certificate the petitioner confined only Rs.1,11,843.00 therefore the learned tribunal permitted her to withdraw the said amount only and held that the petitioner has to obtain extension of the Succession Certificate for the remaining amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that no further orders as required to claim remaining amount relating to the deceased husband of the petitioner. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the decision of composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in "Chitrapu Chinabapanaiah and Others vs. Union of India", 2004(3) ALD 692 wherein it was held as follows: " 8. Succession Certificate is issuable only in cases of debts or securities payable to a deceased individual. Sec. 370 of the Indian Succession Act makes it amply clear. Amount awarded as compensation to an individual is never treated as debt or security. Therefore, no sccession certificate can be issued under the said Act, in relation to an amount awarded as compensation to a deceased-claimant. In Smt. Rukhsana v. Smt. Nazurunnisa, JT 2000(4) SC 346, the Supreme Court held that the amount awarded, as compensation, on account of death of an individual, cannot be treated as debt or security and that the legal heirs of the person who was awarded such compensation, cannot be required to obtain succession certificate. 9. In Smt. Rukhsana v. Smt. Nazurunnisa, JT 2000(4) SC 346, the Supreme Court held that the amount awarded, as compensation, on account of death of an individual, cannot be treated as debt or security and that the legal heirs of the person who was awarded such compensation, cannot be required to obtain succession certificate. 9. It is no disputed that the Appellants 2 and 3 are the class-I heirs of deceased-1st appellant. Their right to succeed to the assets of their father can be defeated only when a superior claim is pressed into service. As on today no such claim is forthcoming. Even if there existed any claims of 3rd parties, in relation to that amount, the payment to Appellants 2 and 3 shall be subject to such claims. The rights of the Appellants 2 and 3, cannot be defeated or delayed in anticipation of any claim by 3rd parties". 9. Therefore, as per decision cited supra, no Succession Certificate is required in the instant case. However, the petitioner has obtained Succession Certificate as per orders of the learned tribunal, though it is not necessary. But the learned tribunal has granted permission to withdraw only Rs.1,11,843.00 and insisted for further orders to withdraw remaining amount is highly unwarranted. The petitioner is none other than the daughter-inlaw of the deceased petitioner and her husband also died in a train accident on 13/9/2003 and as she being the next successor in the family has filed cheque petition to withdraw the amount, which is lying in the account with accrued interest. But the learned tribunal permitted to withdraw only Rs.1,11,843.00 without interest is highly unjust and untenable. The petitioner is now claiming interest against the share of the deceased father-in-law only. In view of the same, there is clear irregularity or impropriety in the order of the learned tribunal and warrants interference of this Court. 10. In view of aforesaid discussion, the C.R.P is allowed, while petitioner herein is entitled to claim whatever interest lying in the share of her deceased father-in-law in total as she being the sole successor of her deceased husband. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.