Parthivjyoti Saikia, J.

1. Hear Mr. M. Biswas, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D.N. Bhattacharya, learned Counsel representing the respondents.

2. This is an application under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 whereby the judgment and order dated 11.10.2012 passed by the District Judge, Karimganj in Misc. Succession Case No. 176/2007 is under challenge.

3. Late Sushanta Das, while working as a UDA in the District Fishery Development Office, Karimganj, expired on 25.07.2007. He left behind his wife Malina Das and a daughter named Swagata Lakshmi Das. They filed an application seeking a Succession Certificate in respect of the debts and securities left behind by late Sushanta Das.

4. After filing of the said application, the present petitioner objected to the prayer for the Succession Certificate. She has claimed that late Sushanata Das married her in the year 1991 according to Hindu rituals. The said marriage was also registered in the office of Sri. Kamakhya Ashram Seva Samiti. She has claimed that in the Fishery Development Office, she is officially known as the wife of late Sushanta Das.

5. According to the petitioner, she also gave birth to the son of late Sushanta Das on 04.05.1992. Even in the Voter List, the petitioner is shown as the wife of Sushanta Das.

6. For the said reason, the petitioner claimed half-share of the debts and securities left behind by late Sushanta Das.

7. The respondents examined three witnesses and the present petitioner examined five witnesses.

8. Finally, the Court below granted the Succession Certificate in favour of the respondents and hence, the present petition has been filed.

9. The petitioner has contended that the learned court below failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by her. She has also challenged the view of the trial court that living together as husband and wife for some years and procreating a child out of that relationship is not sufficient to prove the fact of a valid marriage.

10. I have given consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the sides.

11. The most important question that arises is as to what the District Judge should look for while disposing of a petition praying for a Succession Certificate.

12. The law relating to a succession certificate, has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Madhvi Amma Bhawani Amma v. Kunjikutty Pillai Meenakshi Pillai, (2000) 6 SCC 301. Paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the judgment as quoted as under--

"11. Next we proceed to examine the other head of submission viz. whether decision on any issue in a proceeding to grant succession certificate would operate as res judicata to the issue raised in the subsequent suit. First we proceed to examine the various provisions under the Indian Succession Act. Section 372(1) refers to the application to be made for the grant of succession certificate. Sub-section (1) gives the detail and the manner of making such an application. Sub-section (3) gives the sphere of such application viz. it to be in respect of any debt or debts due to the deceased creditor or in respect of portions thereof. Subsection (3) is quoted hereunder:

"372. (3) Application for such a certificate may be made in respect of any debt or debts due to the deceased creditor or in respect of portions thereof."

12. Under sub-section (1) of Section 373 if the court is satisfied that there is ground for entertaining the application, he fixes a date of hearing after notice. Sub-section (2) decides the right of the applicant, whether entitled for a grant of the certificate. Under sub-section (3), if such Judge cannot decide such right, as the question raised both on facts or law are intricate and difficult then in summary proceedings it can still grant such certificate, if it appears to the court, that the person making such application has a prima facie title thereto. Sub-section (3) of Section 373 is quoted hereunder:

"373. (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 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."

13. This sub-section reveals two things: first, adjudication is in summary proceedings and secondly, if the question of law and facts are intricate or difficult, it could still grant the said certificate based on his prima facie title. In other words the grant of certificate under it is only a determination of prima facie title. This as a necessary corollary confirms that it is not a final decision between the parties. So, it cannot be construed that the mere grant of such certificate or a decision in such proceedings would constitute to be a decision on an issue finally decided between the parties. If that be so how could the principle of res judicata be made applicable to a case in a subsequent suit The effect of such certificate is also laid down in Section 381 which is quoted hereunder:

"381. Effect of certificate.--Subject to the provisions of this Part, the certificate of the District Judge shall, with respect to the debts and securities specified therein, be conclusive as against the persons owing such debts or liable on such securities, and shall, notwithstanding any contravention of Section 370, or other defect, afford full indemnity to all such persons as regards all payments made, or dealings had, in good faith in respect of such debts or securities to or with the person to whom the certificate was granted."

14. So, this certificate merely affords full indemnity to the debtor for the payment he makes to the person holding such certificate. Thus when the debtor pays the debts or the securities as specified in the certificate, to the holder of such certificate, then on such payment, he is absolved from his obligation to pay to anyone else as it conclusively concludes his part of his obligation and such payment is construed to be in good faith. This safeguards such debtor or person liable to pay that he may not be later dragged into any litigation which may arise subsequently inter se between the claimants. The use of words "good faith" in Section 381 reinforces that the decision in these proceedings are not final. When statute recognises such payment to be in good faith it gives clear undercurrent message that there may be in future better claimant but that would not affect the indemnification of the debtor. Thus we find accumulatively because of the grant of succession certificate being for a limited purpose, limited in its sphere, the declaration of title being prima facie, payment tendered is declared to have been made in good faith, leads to only one conclusion that any decision made therein cannot be treated to be final adjudication of the rights of the parties, except such declaration being final for the purpose of these proceedings. If that be so, the amount received by the holder of such certificate can yet be questioned, and in subsequent proceedings it may be held to belong to other claimant, including the contesting party.

15. This can be examined from another angle. The grant of the succession certificate falls under Part X of the aforesaid Act. Its range is between Sections 370 to 390. It is significant to refer here Section 387. This declares the effect of decisions made under this Act and the liability of the holder of such certificate. It lays down that any decision made under this Part (Part X) upon any question of right between the parties shall not bar the trial of the same question in any suit or other proceedings between the same parties. It further records that nothing in this Part shall be construed to affect the liability of any person who may receive the whole or any part of any debts or security to account therefore to the person lawfully entitled thereto. Section 387 is quoted hereunder:

"387. Effect of decisions under this Act, and liability of holder of certificate thereunder.--No decision under this Part upon any question of right between any parties shall be held to bar the trial of the same question in any suit or in any other proceeding between the same parties, and nothing in this Part shall be construed to affect the liability of any person who may receive the whole or any part of any debts or security, or any interest or dividend on any security, to account therefore to the person lawfully entitled thereto."

13. Reverting to the case in hand, here Section 373 (3) of the Indian Succession Act is relevant and it reads as---

"Section 373 (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 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."

14. So for having a succession certificate the applicant has to prove a prima facie title only. A Court issuing a succession certificate does not decide title of the applicant. Such a certificate merely affords full indemnity to the debtor for the payment he makes to the person holding such certificate.

15. I have gone through the evidence available in the record. I find that the respondents have proved a prima facie title in their favour and the court below has rightly appreciated the evidence in the light of the aforesaid facts."

16. Therefore, the present petition is found to be devoid of merit and stands dismissed accordingly.

17. Send back the LCR.