JUDGMENT AND ORDER : ROBIN PHUKAN, J. Heard Mr. A. Biswas, learned counsel for the appellant and also heard Mr. R. Sensua, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. In this Intest.Cas. No.4/2024, filed under Section 384 of the Indian SUCCESSION ACT , 1925, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 30.04.2024, passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.3, Nagaon, in Misc. (Succession) Case No.22/2019. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.04.2024, the learned Additional District Judge has directed to issue a joint succession certificate in favour of the respondents/petitioners and the appellant/opposite party in respect of the debts and securities left behind by the deceased Subal Borah as described in the Schedule to the petition on payment of due court fees and on execution of an indemnity bond by the respondents/petitioners. 3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present appeal are briefly stated as under:- “Late Subal Borah, son of the respondent/petitioner No.1 Smt. Guneswari Borah and father of respondent/petitioner Nos.2 and 3 Smt. Lipika Borah and Dipsikha Borah, during his lifetime was working as Nayak in Assam Special Reserve Force under the Government of Assam. He died on 02.07.2018 leaving behind the respondents/petitioners as his legal heirs. The mother of respondent/petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and the wife of Late Subal Borah died on 28.10.2006. At the time of death of the mother of respondent/petitioner Nos.2 and 3, the respondent/petitioner No.3 was a minor and to take care of her, Subal Borah kept the appellant/opposite party in his house and the appellant instead of taking care of the minor, had manufactured some documents and photographs and inserted her name in some documents as second wife of Subal Borah, though there was no relationship of husband and wife between Subal Borah and the appellant. At the time of his death, Subal Borah left certain debts and securities in the office of the Commandant, Assam Special Reserve Force Bn.II, Karagaon, Karbi Anglong, Assam, under the beneficiary scheme. Therefore, the respondents had filed a petition for granting succession certificate in respect of the debts and securities left behind by deceased Subal Borah for a sum of Rs.14,34,319/-. Therefore, the respondents had filed a petition for granting succession certificate in respect of the debts and securities left behind by deceased Subal Borah for a sum of Rs.14,34,319/-. Subal Borah died intestate without making any Will and no letters of administration or probate application is pending in respect of the estate of deceased Subal Borah and there is no impediment in granting succession certificate under the Indian SUCCESSION ACT . Under the said application, the learned Additional District Judge No.3, Nagaon, vide order dated 10.04.2019, had issued special and general notices to all concerned and pursuant to the notices issued on 10.04.2019, the appellant/opposite party entered appearance and contested the application by filing written objection, wherein it is contended that there is no cause of action and the petition is not maintainable and that Subal Borah married the appellant/opposite party as per Hindu religious rites and rituals and till his death, the appellant lived with him. The appellant denied the allegation of manufacturing false document and that Subal Borah after the death of his wife Bharati Borah, married the appellant on 15.10.2007 and she lived with Subal Borah and the respondents/petitioners and that Lipika Borah, the respondent No.2, got married in 2010 and the appellant claimed that she is entitled to a share over the debts and securities left by the deceased and under such circumstances, she contended to dismiss the application. Thereafter, the learned Additional District Judge No.3, Nagaon (Trial Court, for short), examined the respondent/petitioner No.2 Lipika Borah and the respondent/petitioner No.3 Dipsikha Borah as PWs-1 and 2, respectively and one Malamoni Borah as PW-3. The appellant/opposite party also examined herself as DW-1 and one Deben Hazarika as DW-2 and one Sonaram Hazarika as DW-3 and thereafter, hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and considering the evidence on record and relying upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidhyadhari & Ors. v. Sukhrana Bai & Ors. The appellant/opposite party also examined herself as DW-1 and one Deben Hazarika as DW-2 and one Sonaram Hazarika as DW-3 and thereafter, hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and considering the evidence on record and relying upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidhyadhari & Ors. v. Sukhrana Bai & Ors. reported in (2008) 2 SCC 238 , has disposed of the application by holding that the respondents/petitioners and the appellant/opposite party each are entitled to succeed to proportionate share in respect of debts and securities set forth in the Schedule to the petition and thereafter, directed to issue joint succession certificate in favour of the respondents/petitioners and the appellant/opposite party in respect of the debts and securities left behind by Late Subal Borah as prescribed in the Schedule to the petition.” 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant/opposite party Smt. Jyoti Kalita preferred the present appeal under Section 384 of the Indian SUCCESSION ACT challenging the impugned judgment and order on the following grounds:- (i) That the learned Trial Court erred in law in directing issuance of joint succession certificate in favour of the appellant along with the respondents in respect of the debts and securities left behind by deceased Subal Borah, which is nothing but the service benefits of him and on such count, the impugned judgment and order dated 30.04.2024, is liable to be set aside and quashed. (ii) In view of the interpretation of the provision of Section 372 of the Indian SUCCESSION ACT , it is settled position of law that joint succession certificate cannot be directed to be issued in favour of rival parties to a proceeding under Section 372 of the Indian SUCCESSION ACT and having done so, have vitiated the entire process and consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated 30.04.2024, is liable to be set aside and quashed. (iii) That the learned Trial Court has seriously erred in law and in facts in allowing the application filed by the respondents herein for seeking succession certificate in connection with all the service benefits of the deceased Subal Borah, as the service benefits of the deceased can by no stretch of imagination can be construed to be the debts and securities of the deceased, as the deceased employee does not have any title over the family pension as because the family pension of a deceased employee undoubtedly is not part of the estate of the deceased employee and consequently the same cannot be made a subject matter under the Indian SUCCESSION ACT , 1925, rather the same would always be regulated by the pension rules which confer a statutory right upon the beneficiary eligible to the same and on such count, the impugned judgment and order dated 30.04.2024 is liable to be set aside. (iv) That the learned Trial Court seriously erred in law as well as in facts in directing the issuance of a joint succession certificate in favour of the respondents and the appellant herein in spite of arriving at a specific finding that the appellant herein is the legally married wife of Late Subal Borah and also by holding that nothing will disqualify her from succeeding to the estate of her late husband and it is well settled proposition of law that claim for a succession certificate cannot be granted to anyone other than the wife of the deceased employee if she is alive and on such count, the impugned judgment and order dated 30.04.2024 is liable to be set aside and quashed. (v) That the learned Trial Court has overlooked that the law governing grant of family pension and other service benefits to the deceased is governed by Assam Service (Pension) Rules, 1969 and on such count, the impugned judgment and order dated 30.04.2024 is liable to be set aside and quashed. (vi) That the learned Trial Court allowed the issuance of joint succession certificate in respect of the mother of the deceased as well as married daughter of the deceased in total contravention of the law governing grant of family pension and other service benefits of a deceased government servant has completely vitiated the entire proceeding. (vi) That the learned Trial Court allowed the issuance of joint succession certificate in respect of the mother of the deceased as well as married daughter of the deceased in total contravention of the law governing grant of family pension and other service benefits of a deceased government servant has completely vitiated the entire proceeding. (vii) That grant of joint succession certificate in respect of family pension and other service benefits of the deceased in the name of the mother of the deceased is totally contrary to the provision of the Hindu SUCCESSION ACT , 1956 in as much as under the provision of the said statute, the mother is not considered as First Class Heir of a deceased Hindu along with his daughters, both married and unmarried, especially when his wife is alive, as in the instant case and on such count, the impugned judgment and order dated 30.04.2024, is liable to be interfered with. 5. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Court cannot grant succession certificate in respect of pensionary benefit of the deceased employee and that the grant of pension and pensionary benefit is governed by the relevant pension rule and that the mother and married daughters are excluded from getting the pension and pensionary benefit of the deceased employee. Further, Mr. Biswas submits that only one succession certificate can be issued in respect of the debts and securities left behind by the deceased employee and that the learned Trial Court by granting joint succession certificate that to in respect of pension and pensionary benefits transgressed into the jurisdiction which is not conferred upon the learned Court and under such circumstances, Mr. Biswas has contended to allow this appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 30.04.2024. 5.1 In support of his submission, Mr. Biswas has referred to the following decisions:- (i) Nitu v. Sheela Rani & Ors. , reported in (2016) 16 SCC 229 (ii) Uttar Pradesh Roadways Retired Officials and Officers Association v. State of U.P. & Anr. reported in (2024) 9 SCC 331 (iii) Lonachand Gangaram Marwadi v. Uttamckand Gangaram Marwadi , reported in MANU/MH/0021/1891 (iv) Rosy Joseph v. District Transport Officer , reported in 2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 44796 (v) Mustt. Zubeda Ahmed v. Mustt. Fazlia Begum , reported in 2015 (4) GLR 571 (vi) Deokinandan Prasad v. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2024) 9 SCC 331 (iii) Lonachand Gangaram Marwadi v. Uttamckand Gangaram Marwadi , reported in MANU/MH/0021/1891 (iv) Rosy Joseph v. District Transport Officer , reported in 2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 44796 (v) Mustt. Zubeda Ahmed v. Mustt. Fazlia Begum , reported in 2015 (4) GLR 571 (vi) Deokinandan Prasad v. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (1971) 2 SCC 330 (vii) Madan Mohan v. Ramdial & Ors. , reported in MANU/UP/0090/1882 (viii) Jamnabai v. Hastubai , reported in MANU/MH/0075/1886 6. Per contra, Mr. Sensua, learned counsel for the respondents/petitioners submits that the learned Trial Court has not committed any illegality in granting the joint succession certificate in respect of the appellant and the respondents jointly and there is no bar in granting such succession certificate jointly. However, Mr. Sensua fairly submits that succession certificate cannot be issued in respect of the pension and pensionary benefits, but the same can be issued in respect of the debts and securities left behind by the deceased employee and as such, the impugned judgment and order may be modified so far it relates to the grant of pensionary benefit is concerned and remaining part of the judgment and order may be upheld. In support of his submission, Mr. Sensua has referred the following decisions:- (i) Ritinbhai Dilsukhbhai Baxi v. Bidhin Manharbhai Baxi reported in 2012 SCC OnLine Guj 6161 (ii) Dulia Devi v. Dulia Devi , reported in MANU/UP/0659/2001 (iii) Arikala Narasa Reddy v. Venkata Ram Reddy Reddygari & Ors. , reported in MANU/SC/0079/2014 (iv) Smt. Violet Issaac & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1991) 1 SCC 725 7. In reply to the submission of Mr. Sensua, Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party submits that succession certificate cannot be issued in respect of the service benefit of the deceased employee. Mr. Biswas also submits that one of the daughters of the deceased employee already got married and an application filed by a married daughter is not maintainable and under such circumstances, Mr. Biswas has contended to allow this appeal. 8. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the memo of appeal and the grounds mentioned therein and also gone through the decisions so referred by learned counsel for both the parties. 9. The basic facts here in this appeal are not in dispute. Biswas has contended to allow this appeal. 8. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the memo of appeal and the grounds mentioned therein and also gone through the decisions so referred by learned counsel for both the parties. 9. The basic facts here in this appeal are not in dispute. The respondents/petitioners are mother and daughters of the deceased employee and the appellant/opposite party is the second wife of the deceased employee. The respondents have filed the petition under Section 372 of the Indian SUCCESSION ACT for grant of succession certificate in respect of the debts and securities left behind by the deceased Subal Borah, who was serving as Nayak in the office of the Commandant, Assam Special Reserve Force BN.II, Karagaon, Karbi Anglong, and in the schedule it has been mentioned that following debts and securities lying in the name of deceased Subal Borah: (i) Leave encashment Rs.3,65,874/- (ii) GIS coverage benefit Rs.2,00,000/- (iii) GIS accumulated value of savings Rs.60,467/- (iv) Family pension Rs.36,000/- (v) Gratuity Rs.4,50,000/- (vi) GPF Rs.3,21,978/- All Total Rs.14,34,319/- Finding of the Trial Court:- 10. The learned trial Court, after hearing learned counsel for both the parties and also considering the evidence, so brought on record and relying upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vidhyadhari and others vs. Sukhrana Bai and Others as reported in (2008) 2 SCC 238, arrived at finding as under:- 17. The wife along with son, daughter and mother are Class I heirs under the Hindu SUCCESSION ACT . Since attempt has been made to disqualify the O.P. on the ground that she was never married to Subal Borah but the same falls flat in view of Exhibit 4. 18. Therefore, when it becomes clear that the O.P. is the wife of Late Subal Borah, nothing will disqualify her from succeeding to the estate of her late husband and she is entitled to succeed to her proportionate share of her deceased husband. It is not necessary to drive parties to some other forum because the necessary parties are before this Court. It is not necessary to drive parties to some other forum because the necessary parties are before this Court. As held by the Hon'ble - Supreme Court in Vidhyadhari and others v. Sukhrana Bai and Others as reported in (2008) 2 SCC 238, this Court can itself declare the rights of the parties with the proportionate share to each of them so as to succeed to the estate of Late Subal Borah. 19. Accordingly, I am of considered opinion that as the petitioners and the O.P. are the Class I legal heirs of the deceased Subal Borah, therefore, I do not find any impediment in granting the Succession Certificate as prayed for in favour of the petitioners. There is also nothing in the case-record to show any legal impediment u/s 370 of the Act in granting Succession Certificate in favour of the petitioners with a rider that the petitioners and the O.P. each are entitled to succeed to proportionate share in respect of the debts and securities set forth in the Schedule to the petition. 20. Issue a joint Succession Certificate in favour of the petitioners no. 1 to 3 and the O.P. in respect of the debt and securities left behind by deceased Late Subal Borah as described in the Schedule to the petition on payment of due Court Fees and on execution of an indemnity bond by petitioners for the amount of certificate for due distribution of the amount to the ?.?. 10.1 In view of the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties and the grounds so taken in this appeal, the issues, to be addressed by this Court are:- (i) Whether the joint succession certificate can be issued in respect of the debts and securities left behind by the deceased employee? (ii) Whether a married daughter is entitled to her share of debt and securities left behind by her deceased father? (iii) Whether succession certificate can be issued in respect of family pension? Issue No.I:- 11. This Court has considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and also gone through the decisions referred by them. It appears that there are conflicting decisions in respect of issuance of joint succession certificate by the Courts. Some of the High Courts’ held that joint succession certificate cannot be issued in respect of debts and securities left behind by the deceased employee. It appears that there are conflicting decisions in respect of issuance of joint succession certificate by the Courts. Some of the High Courts’ held that joint succession certificate cannot be issued in respect of debts and securities left behind by the deceased employee. Reference in this context can be made to the decisions referred by Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the appellant in Madan Mohan (supra) , Lonachand Gangaram Marwadi (supra) and Jamnabai (supra) 11.1 On the other hand, some of the High Courts’ held that it can be issued. Reference in this context can be made to the decisions in (i) Dulia Devi (supra) and (ii) Ritinbhai Dilsukhbhai Baxi (supra) , where in it has been held that there is no bar in issuing joint succession certificate. 12. That a perusal of Sub-Section 4 to Section 373 of the Indian SUCCESSION ACT reveals that – ‘When there are more applicants than one for a certificate, and it appears to the Judge that more than one of such applicants are interested in the estate of the deceased, the Judge may, in deciding to whom the certificate is to be granted, have regard to the extent of interest and the fitness in other respects of the applicants.’ Thus, it is apparent that when there is more than one applicant, who are interested in the estate of the deceased, the Courts while issuing the certificate, has to consider the extent of interest and fitness of the said applicants. 13. This issue was also considered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sakti Gupta Vs. Shantanu Gupta (Dr.), reported in 2010 (1) GLT 645. In the said case, main issues before this Court were :- (i) Whether the learned District Judge committed error in granting succession certificate jointly in violation of the provisions of Section 373 of the Act 1925? (ii) Whether in absence of Class I heirs, heirs of the deceased Petitioner and objectors are entitled to get the Succession Certificate jointly as has been done in the instant case by the learned Court below? 13.1 Thereafter, this Court had decided the Issue No.1 and 2 in affirmative, in following words:- "17………………………………….. ……………. This particular aspect is to be taken up in answering question Nos. 13.1 Thereafter, this Court had decided the Issue No.1 and 2 in affirmative, in following words:- "17………………………………….. ……………. This particular aspect is to be taken up in answering question Nos. 1 and 2 in order to ascertain who has got the "best title" in respects of debts and securities left out by the deceased Praphulla Ranjan Gupta. The substituted Appellants and the objectors all belong to brother's son and daughter belonging to Group IV of Class II of the Schedule appended to the Hindu SUCCESSION ACT , 1956 ('Act 1956', for short). All of them belong to same degree with equal rights. This finding is arrived at in order to determine the "best title" of the claimants in the present case. That being the position, I have no hesitation to hold that the substituted Appellants and the objectors are jointly entitled to get the Succession Certificate and distribution of property should be made among heirs in Class II of the Schedule as contemplated under Section 11 of the Hindu SUCCESSION ACT , 1956. Therefore, the question Nos. 1 and 2 are answered accordingly in favour of the heirs of the brother of the deceased Praphulla Ranjan Gupta. 18. In the following decisions, various High Courts were of the view that succession certificate can be issued jointly in favour of many Applicants; it is not necessary that succession certificate should be issued only in favour of one person. (i) AIR 1937 Ran 336: Daw John Bwint and Ors. v. Daw Saw May and Anr. (ii) MANU/PH/0004/1995 : AIR 1995 P&H 14 : Shanti and Ors. v. Pankaj and Ors. In Daw Saw (supra), the Court relying upon the decisions reported in MANU/UP/0488/1934 : AIR 1935 All 470 held that though the order of granting a certificate to more persons than one might be inconvenient yet there is nothing illegal in it. In Shanti (supra), the Court held that when assets left by the deceased is easily distributable and the heirs falling in two groups of being entitled to equal share, succession certificate jointly in favour of many claimant can be issued and it is not necessary that it should be issued only in favour of one person. In Shanti (supra), the Court held that when assets left by the deceased is easily distributable and the heirs falling in two groups of being entitled to equal share, succession certificate jointly in favour of many claimant can be issued and it is not necessary that it should be issued only in favour of one person. While coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the Court in Shanti (supra) relied upon the following decisions: (a) MANU/WB/0073/1941 : AIR 1941 Cal 663 , (b) MANU/RA/0079/1937 : AIR 1937 Rangoon 336, (c) MANU/BH/0190/1936 : AIR 1936 Patna 430, (d) MANU/BH/0099/1933 : AIR 1934 Patna 304, (e) MANU/MH/0077/1929 : AIR 1929 Bombay 456, (f) 1939 ALLJR page 717. 13.2 It is to be noted here that in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandhya Educational Society v. Union of India , reported in (2014) 7 SCC 701 , wherein it has been held that a Coordinate Bench has to respect the judgments and orders passed by another Coordinate Bench. Relevant pargraph is quoted herein below:- " 9. In our considered opinion, judicial decorum and discipline is paramount and, therefore, a coordinate Bench has to respect the judgments and orders passed by another coordinate Bench and cannot on mere assumptions refer the matter for consideration by a larger Bench. In that view of the matter, keeping in view the well- settled legal position in the cases of Vinod Kapoor [ (2012) 12 SCC 378 : AIR 2012 SC 3722 ] , Suseel Finance & Leasing Co. [(2004) 13 SCC 675] and M.N. Haider [ (2004) 13 SCC 677 ] , we dismiss this appeal as not maintainable. Ordered accordingly." 13.3 Same principle is re-affirmed by a Constitutional Bench of Honble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others , reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. 13.4 Under the given factual and legal matrix, this Court is of the view that the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sakti Gupta (supra) is binding upon this Court. 13.5 It is to be noted here that in the case of Vidhyadhari v. Sukhrana Bai, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 238 , Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with this issue as under:- 14. 13.5 It is to be noted here that in the case of Vidhyadhari v. Sukhrana Bai, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 238 , Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with this issue as under:- 14. Therefore, though we agree with the High Court that Sukhrana Bai was the only legitimate wife yet, we would choose to grant the certificate in favour of Vidhyadhari who was his nominee and the mother of his four children. However, we must balance the equities as Sukhrana Bai is also one of the legal heirs and besides the four children she would have the equal share in Sheetaldeen's estate which would be 1/5th. To balance the equities we would, therefore, choose to grant succession certificate to Vidhyadhari but with a rider that she would protect the 1/5th share of Sukhrana Bai in Sheetaldeen's properties and would hand over the same to her. As the nominee she would hold the 1/5th share of Sukhrana Bai in trust and would be responsible to pay the same to Sukhrana Bai. We direct that for this purpose she would give a security in the trial court to the satisfaction of the trial court. 13.6 In view of the aforesaid decision and also considering the given facts and circumstances on the record, this Court is of the view that if the litigating parties are entitled to their proportionate share in respect of the debts and securities left behind by the deceased employee, then there cannot be any bar in granting joint succession certificate. And in that view of the matter, this Court is unable to record concurrence with the submission of Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the appellant. The learned Trial Court, therefore, had not committed any illegality in directing to issue joint succession certificate. Issue No. II:- 14. Regarding issuance of succession certificate in respect of debt and securities to a married daughter, which Mr. Biswas, the learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently opposed, this Court finds that the position has been changed after the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 which introduced gender equality for the first time, in succession laws in India. Issue No. II:- 14. Regarding issuance of succession certificate in respect of debt and securities to a married daughter, which Mr. Biswas, the learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently opposed, this Court finds that the position has been changed after the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 which introduced gender equality for the first time, in succession laws in India. The 2005 Amendment and the judicial decisions thereafter have clarified that a married daughter has a right over the property of her father which is equal to that of a son and the right of a legal daughter on her father’s property does not depend on her marital status. 14.1 The relevant provision, i.e. Section 6 read as under:- '6. Devolution of interest in coparcenary property.- (1) On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, in a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall,- (a) by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son; (b) have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son; (c) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenary property as that of a son, and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter of a coparcener: Provided that nothing contained in this sub- section shall affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before the 20th day of December, 2004. (2) Any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitled by virtue of sub-section (1) shall be held by her with the incidents of coparcenary ownership and shall be regarded, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, or any other law for the time being in force, as property capable of being disposed of by her by testamentary disposition. (2) Any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitled by virtue of sub-section (1) shall be held by her with the incidents of coparcenary ownership and shall be regarded, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, or any other law for the time being in force, as property capable of being disposed of by her by testamentary disposition. (3) Where a Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, his interest in the property of a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be, under this Act and not by survivorship, and the coparcenary property shall be deemed to have been divided as if a partition had taken place and,- (a) the daughter is allotted the same share as is allotted to a son; (b) the share of the pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as they would have got had they been alive at the time of partition, shall be allotted to the surviving child of such pre deceased son or of such pre-deceased daughter; and (c) the share of the pre-deceased child of a pre-deceased son or of a pre-deceased daughter, as such child would have got had he or she been alive at the time of the partition, shall be allotted to the child of such pre-deceased child of the pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as the case may be. Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub- section, the interest of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition of the property had taken place immediately before his death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not. 15. In the case of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma reported in AIR 2020 Supreme Court 3717, a three-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, interpreting the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, to ensure gender equality in Hindu inheritance laws, held that daughters have co-parcenary rights by birth, just like sons, and these rights are not dependent on the survival of their father as of 2005. The Court emphasized that co-parcenary status is conferred by birth, making a daughter’s entitlement to ancestral property absolute and independent of any other condition. The Court emphasized that co-parcenary status is conferred by birth, making a daughter’s entitlement to ancestral property absolute and independent of any other condition. Hon’ble Supreme Court has also ruled that the 2005 amendment has retrospective effect, meaning that it applies to all pending cases where inheritance rights were still unsettled. However, it does not operate retroactively, which means it does not reopen settled partitions or transactions that were lawfully concluded before 2005. 16. In view of aforesaid discussions and findings, the submission of Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the appellant is found to be devoid of force. The issue No. II has to be decided in affirmative and accordingly, the same stands answered. Issue No.III. 17. Now coming to the Issue No.III, i.e. the point of issuance of succession certificate in respect of family pension, it is well settled in the case of Rosy Joseph (supra), Mustt. Zubeda Ahmed (supra) and Nitu (supra) , that family pension is independent and does not require a succession certificate for its disbursement. It is not classified as a debt and security under the Indian SUCCESSION ACT , 1925, in respect of which the succession certificate can be applied under Section 372 of the Indian SUCCESSION ACT . 18. The same is governed by the relevant pension rule, as held in the case of Uttar Pradesh Roadways Retired Officials and Officers Association(supra), and in the case of Smt. Violet Issaac (supra). And in the present case, the Assam Service (Pension) Rules, 1969 is applicable. And who will be entitled to the pension is well settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitu (supra) , wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the family pension does not form part of the estate of the deceased and therefore, even an employee has no right to dispose of the same in his will by giving a direction that someone other than the one who is entitled to, it should be given the same. 19. 19. It is also held in the aforementioned case in paragraph No.16 that so far as the provisions of the Hindu SUCCESSION ACT , 1956, are concerned, it is true that the properties of a Hindu, who dies intestate, would first of all go to the persons enumerated in class I of the schedule as per the provisions of Section 8 of the said Act and therefore, so far as the properties of late Shri Yash Pal are concerned, they would be divided among the respondent mother and the appellant wife, provided there is no other family member of late Shri Yash Pal alive, who would fall within Class-1 heirs, but position in this case, with regard to pension, is different. 20. Under the given facts and circumstances and also considering the decision referred by learned counsel for both the parties, this Court is of the view that the learned Trial Court has erred in granting succession certificate in respect of the pension of the deceased employee. But, in respect of the other debts and securities left behind by the deceased employee, to the considered opinion of this Court, the same warrant no interference of this Court. 21. In the result, this Court finds no merit in this appeal. And accordingly, the same stands dismissed. While affirming the impugned judgment and order dated 30.04.2024, the direction in respect of family pension is interfered with. To balance the equities, between the parties, following direction and observations are being issued:- (i) Succession certificate shall be granted to the appellant herein, being the nominee of the deceased employee in his service record, subject however to the condition that she would protect the 1/4 th share of respondent Guneswari Borah (mother), Lipika Borah (daughter) and Dipsikha Borah (daughter) of the debt and securities left behind by the deceased Late Subal Borah. (ii) As the nominee she would hold the 1/4 th share of Late Sbal Borah in trust and would be responsible to pay rest of the amount to the respondent herein. (iii) It is further provided that for this purpose she would give a security in the learned trial court to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. (ii) As the nominee she would hold the 1/4 th share of Late Sbal Borah in trust and would be responsible to pay rest of the amount to the respondent herein. (iii) It is further provided that for this purpose she would give a security in the learned trial court to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. (iv) Since family pension is not classified as a debt and security under the Indian SUCCESSION ACT 1925, and does not require a succession certificate for its disbursement, the impugned judgment and order dated 30.04.2024, directing to grant succession certificate in respect of family pension is interfered with. However, liberty will remain with the parties to approach appropriate authority under the relevant Pension Rule. 22. In terms of above, this appeal stands disposed of.