ORDER : Heard the parties. 1. The instant Misc. Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order passed in Succession Certificate Case No. 32 of 2000, by which the succession certificate has been issued in favour of the appellant as well as respondent nos. 1 and 2, to the extent of 1/3 rd share each with respect to terminal dues of Late Laxman Oraon lying with the department in which he was serving at the time of his death. 2. The application for succession was filed by respondent no. 1 and 2 impleading Smt. Chandu Orain, wife of Late Laxman Oraon. 3. As per the case of the applicant, the deceased was serving as a Night Guard in the office of the District Forum, Gumla and he died on 30.01.2000. As per the case of the applicant/respondents, Applicant No. 1 was the second wife of Late Laxman Oraon and Applicant No. 2- Surendra Oraon was born from the wedlock of Laxman Oraon and Raso Devi. The name of Applicant No. 1 was entered as nominee and successor of Late Laxman Oraon in the records of District Provident Fund, Gumla. The application for succession was filed with respect to the schedule of the debts and securities detailed therein which were the terminal dues of the deceased. 4. The first wife Chandu Orain appeared and filed her written statement wherein it was disputed that Riso Devi and Surendra Oraon had any relation with Laxman Oraon. During pendency of trial, first wife Chandu Orain died and her name was deleted by order dated 16.11.2018. 5. The present appellant Budhmani Kumari filed separate written statement, wherein the application for succession certificate was contested inter alia on the ground that under ‘Oraon’, second marriage was prohibited during life time of first wife. As per the case of the appellant, she was adopted by Laxman Oraon and Chandu Orain as per Oraon Customary Law. 6. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that no evidence has been led on behalf of the applicant in support of the pleadings that under ‘Oraon Customary Law’ second marriage was permitted during the life time of first wife. Therefore, respondent no. 1 cannot be regarded as the second wife of Laxman Oraon and Surendra Oraon cannot be accepted to be his son. 7. Therefore, respondent no. 1 cannot be regarded as the second wife of Laxman Oraon and Surendra Oraon cannot be accepted to be his son. 7. It is argued by learned counsel for the respondents that the name of Riso Devi has been entered in G.P.F. form as the nominee (Ext.3). In Ext.8 which is the Ration Card, the name of Riso Devi has been shown as member and beneficiary as a wife of Laxman Oraon. 8. Having considered the submission advanced on behalf of both sides, and before adverting to the merit of claim advanced on behalf of both sides, it shall be desirable to take note of adjudication while deciding an application for grant of succession certificate. It has been held in Joginder Pal v. Indian Red Cross Society, (2000) 8 SCC 143 : “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 seem to be too intricate and difficult for determination in a summary proceeding, he may nevertheless grant a certificate to the applicant if he appears to be the person having prima facie the 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, 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. Section 387 specifically permits the 2nd ( sic 1st) respondent to file a subsequent suit. Merely because issues were raised and/or evidence was led, does not mean that the findings given thereunder are final and operate as res judicata. Even in summary proceedings issues can be raised and/or evidence can be led. The proceedings remain summary even though the court may, in its discretion, permit leading of evidence and raising of issues. So in a subsequent suit the crucial issues must be decided afresh untrammelled or uninfluenced by any finding made in the proceedings for grant of succession certificate.” C.K. Prahalada v. State of Karnataka, (2008) 15 SCC 577 : “17. A succession certificate is granted for a limited purpose. A court granting a succession certificate does not decide the question of title. A succession certificate is granted for a limited purpose. A court granting a succession certificate does not decide the question of title. A nominee or holder of succession certificate has a duty to hand over the property to the person who has a legal title thereto. By obtaining a succession certificate alone, a person does not become the owner of the property.” In Vidhyadhari v. Sukhrana Bai [ (2008) 2 SCC 238 : “ 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.” (emphasis added) State of Chhattisgarh v. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar, (2009) 13 SCC 600 : “ 22. A succession certificate can be granted in favour of any person. It may be granted to an heir or a nominee. By reason of grant of such certificate, a person in whose favour succession certificate is granted becomes a trustee to distribute the amount payable by the deceased to his heirs and legal representatives. He does not derive any right thereunder. The succession certificate merely enabled him to collect the dues of the deceased.” Tulsa Devi Nirola v. Radha Nirola, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 283: “ 12. In Vidhyadhari (supra), this Court accepted the claim of the second wife to receive inter alia pension based on nomination since, like the present case, the deceased was residing with the second wife to the exclusion of the first. The grant of succession certificate to the second wife was held valid.” 9. In Vidhyadhari (supra), this Court accepted the claim of the second wife to receive inter alia pension based on nomination since, like the present case, the deceased was residing with the second wife to the exclusion of the first. The grant of succession certificate to the second wife was held valid.” 9. From the above conspectus of authorities, it can be safely inferred that the though second marriage may be void, but succession certificate cannot be refused to be granted in her favour, if she was living with her husband as wife and/or name appeared as nominee in the service records of the deceased. In the present case appeal is preferred by the appellant who claims herself to be the adopted daughter of the deceased, whereas the respondent no.1 is the second wife and respondent no.2 is the son, as per the finding of fact recorded by the learned Court below. In this view of matter, the plea that Respondent no.1 being the second wife, was not entitled to succession certificate cannot be countenanced. Under the circumstance, Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. Pending, I.A. if any stands disposed of.