IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.510 of 2009 BINITA KUMARI @ MOST.VINITA DEVI Versus MOST.PRABHAWATI DEVI & ORS ----------- 2 26.04.2010 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. This Misc. Appeal has been filed against the order dated 02.07.2009 passed by Shri Rajendra Prasad Mishra, IVth Additional District Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah in Succession Case No. 03 of 2002 whereby he has allowed the application for grant of Succession Certificate in favour of respondent No. 1. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased was an employee in M.J.K. College, Bettiah, West Champaran. On his death, the Succession Certificate case was filed by the respondent No. 1 making the wife/appellant as O.P. in the Succession Certificate case and also the college and university. After hearing the parties, the learned court below has wrongly granted Succession Certificate in favour of mother/respondent No. 1 also. According to the learned counsel, in view of the statute framed under the Bihar Universities Act, the mother would not have been granted Succession Certificate. The learned counsel relied upon the definition of Family as provided under section 2(d) and also the procedure on the death of the subscriber 2 regarding payment of the retiral benefit. 3. Under the statutes, section 2(d) family has been defined as follows: “Family for the purpose of general provident fund and contributory provident fund means the husband/wife or wives as the case may be and children of a subscribe and the widow or widows and the children of deceased son of the subscribed. In the procedure about payment of general provident fund in Paragraph-11.1.1 (b) it has been mentioned that “shall not withstanding any nomination purporting to be in favour of any person or persons other than member or members of his family become payable to his/her spouse and, if the spouse is predeceased shall be payavble to the members of his family in equal shares.” 4. The learned counsel for the appellant on the basis of these provisions submitted that this being the special law shall override the general law. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. On perusal of the statute, it appears that only procedure has been provided. The right, title and interest of any person cannot be taken out by a procedural law 3 only. So far the definition “family” is concerned also, even if it does not include the mother in family, it will not take away the right, title and interest which has been vested in her according to the general law. Moreover, the university laws only provides as to who is entitled for receiving the amount. It is well settled that even there is nominee then also the nominee is not the legal heir, the nominee only receives the amount from the authority and it is the duty of the nominee to distribute the amount on the legal heirs who are actually entitled to the amount of the deceased. Admittedly, mother is class-I heir and therefore, she is entitled to the property of the son. Therefore, the learned court below has rightly granted the Succession Certificate also in favour of the mother. I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the court below. 6. In the result, I find no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly, dismissed. akv/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)