JUDGMENT : GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Instant civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 10.06.2025 passed by learned District Judge IV, Garhwa, in Succession Certificate Case No.06/2017 by which the petition to recast the issue has been rejected. 2. Opposite Party No.1 filed Succession Certificate Case No.06/2017 with respect to the Special Term Deposit Receipt (STDRs) total eight in number, in the name of Dr. Motichand Bishwanath Agrawal and Mrs. Taramati Agrawal, who happen to be parents of Opposite Party No.1. 3. Present petitioner happens to be brother of Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.3. 4. The learned Court below has framed the following issues :- I. Whether this Succession case is maintainable in present form and applicant has got valid cause of action? II. Whether the deceased father of applicant Moti Chand Agrawal has died intestate? III. Whether the applicant is entitled to get succession certificate as claimed? 5. The present petitioner filed an application to recast and incorporate the following issues for adjudication:- I. Whether the present case is a partition suit in garb of Succession Certificate Case? II. Whether the deceased father of the parties made a testament by putting name of O.P. No.3 with respect to the property in question and if the same is his last will and testament? III. Whether other heirs of deceased father of the parties ceased their interest/ succession with respect to the property in question due to nomination except the O.P. No.3? IV. Is the present case is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? V. Whether non-appearance in court to support the case liable to draw adverse inference against the concerned party? VI. Is the case barred by the law of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence? VII. Is the present case barred by law of limitation? VIII. Is the petitioner entitled to the relief as claimed? IX. To what relief or reliefs the petitioner entitled to? 6. Learned Court below has rejected the petition on the ground that the proposed issues were beyond the pleadings and were against the settled principle of law. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that there are mainly two fundamental issues which are need to be decided by the learned trial Court and they are as under: - I. Whether the present case is a partition suit in garb of succession certificate case? II. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that there are mainly two fundamental issues which are need to be decided by the learned trial Court and they are as under: - I. Whether the present case is a partition suit in garb of succession certificate case? II. Whether other heirs of deceased father of the parties ceased their interest/succession with respect to the property in question due to nomination except opposite party no.3? 8. It is argued that the petitioner was nominated as the nominee to receive the debt and security with respect to the Bank Accounts left behind by his father. Opposite Party No.1- Sanjay Kumar Agarwalla, who is applicant in the present succession case, has already withdrawn more than what was due to him, and now is also claiming his share in the debt and security of his father in which he has been made nominee. 9. Opposite parties have defended the impugned order. 10. At the outset, it may be noted that proceedings before a Court hearing an application for grant of succession certificate is summary in nature, and therefore a full-fledged trial with requirements of pleadings and issue to be framed, is not required. Grant of a succession certificate in contested cases, hinges on the Court’s assessment of the validity of the claims and succession certificates are generally considered as a procedural instrument to enable collection of debts or securities due to the deceased without establishing heirship or title as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Jaimahal Hotels Private Limited & Another Vs. Rajkumar Devraj, ( 2016) 1 SCC 423. 11. Proceedings under Chapter X, of the Succession Act are summary in nature. If the Judge cannot decide the right to the certificate without determining questions of law or fact, which seems to be too intricate and difficult for determination, he may nevertheless grant a certificate to the applicant, if he appears to be the person having prima facie best title thereto. 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 decide to whom the certificate is to be granted. See Joginder Pal V Indian Red Cross Society , (2000) 8 SCC 143 . 12. 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 decide to whom the certificate is to be granted. See Joginder Pal V Indian Red Cross Society , (2000) 8 SCC 143 . 12. A nominee is merely a trustee or custodian of the funds, who is appointed to receive the amount from the bank on behalf of the legal heirs. The nominee does not become the owner of the money by virtue of nomination. The legal hairs or successors under the personal law of succession are the ones entitled to the money after the account holder’s death. 13. Law contemplates that certificate is issued to a person who has right to the amounts. In case, where more than one person applies for certificate, a joint certificate may be granted to both, if their interest are identical. There may be some inconvenience to grant succession certificate but Section 373(4) of the Succession Act, does not debar the issue of a joint certificate to rival claimants. It is however settled that succession certificate cannot be granted to two or more in fractions. 14. In view of the above stated position of law, the proposed issues are not germane in adjudication over application for grant of succession certificate. Civil Miscellaneous Petition accordingly stands dismissed. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.