Nagendra Rai, J.

1. This revision is directed against the order dated 4.9.98 passed by the Subordinate Judge 1st, Muzaffarpur in Succession Case No. 27/92 by which the court below has kept the Succession Case for issuance of Succession Certificate under Chapter (sic--Part) X of the Indian Succession Act (Hereinafter referred to as the) in abeyance and has directed the opposite party to get the declaration from the competent Civil Court that she is a legally married wife of Late Jawahar Poddar.

2. Jawahar Poddar son of Moti Poddar resident of village & P.O. Itaha, P.S. Saikra, District Muzaffarpur, died on 25.6.91 at his village. The Petitioner claiming himself to be the full brother of Jawahar Poddar, deceased filed an application for grant/issuance of a Succession Certificate under Chapter (sic--Part) X of the Indian Succession Act which was numbered as Succession Case No. 27/1992. He examined three witnesses and also filed documents in support of his assertion. In the meantime on 14.9.92 Opp. Party Parwati Devi filed an application claiming herself to be the third wife of deceased Jawahar Prasad and prayed for that she may be added as objector in the succession case. She also asserted the maintainability of the proceeding at the instance of the Petitioner. She also filed certain documents in support of her claim of being the widow of the deceased. The Court below after hearing the parties by the impugned order came to the conclusion that the question as to whether the opposite party is the widow of Late Jawahar Poddar or not requires thorough enquiry which is not possible in the summary proceeding under Section 373 of the Succession Act and accordingly ordered her to get a declaration from the Civil Court that she is legally married wife of Sri Poddar and in the meantime kept the succession case in abeyance.

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that at the stage of grant of succession certificate the court cannot go into the complicated question of right and title. It has only to decide as to who is entitled to the certificate even when there are more than one claimants. If the court finds that the question of law is too intricate and difficult for the determination in the summary proceeding even then it can grant a certificate to a person who appears to have a prima facie best title to certificate. But in this case the court below without making any effort to decide the question has passed the impugned order and thus failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it.

4. Though the other side has appeared but nobody appeared on the date when the case was taken up.

5. Chapter (sic--Part) X of the deals with Succession* Certificate. This part has been incorporated with sole object to obtain appointment of some person to give legal discharge of debtors to the estate for debts due. In other words, the Object is to facilitate the collection and debts by the heirs of the deceased and to enable the debtor to obtain valid discharge.

6. Section 373 deals with procedure to be followed on filing an application for certificate, which runs as follows:

(1) If the District Judge is satisfied that there is ground for entertaining the application, he shall fix a day for the hearing thereof and cause notice of the application and of the day fixed for the hearing:

(a) to be served on any person to whom, in the opinion of the judge, especial notice of the application should be given, and

(b) to be posted on some conspicuous part of the court-house and published in such other manner, if any, as the judge, subject to any rules made by the High Court in this behalf thinks fit and upon the day fixed, or as soon thereafter as may be practicable, shall proceed to decide in a summary manner the right of the certificate

(2) When the judge decides the right thereto to belong to the Applicant, the judge shall make an order for the grant of the certificate to him.

(3) 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 the 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.

(4) 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 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 Applicant.

7. The purpose for summary enquiry under Section 373 is that an early decision is taken with regard to the grant of certificate. The decision taken in the summary proceeding does not operate as res judicata in a subsequent litigation. The contested question of title to the property cannot be gone into.

8. Sub-section (3) of Section 373 provides inter alia that when the question of law or facts is too intricate and difficult for determination in summary proceeding even then the court should not refrain itself from deciding the question of grant of certificate. On the other hand taking into consideration the facts of the case it should grant certificate to the person who appears to have prima facie best title thereto. Sub-section (4) of Section 373 provides that if there are more than one Applicants even in that case in deciding the question to whom certificate is to be granted the court has to take into consideration the interest and the fitness in other respect of the Applicants. The Court after entertaining the application cannot shirk to its responsibility by holding that as the complicated questions of law or facts are there, no summary enquiry is to be held with regard to the grant of certificate. Even in such cases the efforts should be made to decide as to whom the certificate is to be granted keeping in view of the person having the prima facie best title to the grant of certificate and in that case the certificate is to be granted to the person having prima facie clearest title to certificate.

9. Thus, it has to be held that though at the stage of grant of certificate under Chapter (sic--Part) X the nature of the enquiry is a summary one but that does not mean that whenever an intricate question of law or facts appears or involved in the case the proceeding be stayed. Even at that stage the effort is to be made to decide the question in the light of the provision contained in Sub-section (3) & (4) of Section 373 of the. The nature of the enquiry, however, should be only confined to decide as 10 whom the certificate is to be granted and not as to who has a title of the estate of the deceased.

10. In this case the Petitioner has examined some witnesses in support of his claim and the opposite party also claims to be the widow of the deceased. The court should have afforded an opportunity to the opposite party also to lead and then should have decided in a summary manner as to whether in the facts of this case the certificate should be granted to any one of the claimants or not. The court has not followed the said procedure and has kept the succession case in abeyance till the declaration of title by the opposite party by the civil court. This amounts to refusal to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the authority to decide the matter regarding the grant of certificate.

11. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the court below to proceed afresh in the light of the observation mentioned above.