SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Bom) 1201

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Manda w/o. Raju Pande
versus
Jankibai wd/o. Sunderlal Dubey
Decided On : (September 8, 2005) 2006

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 16 and Succession Act, 1925, Section 387 Suit for declaration and cancellation of succession certificate Suit was filed in Civil Court at Wardha Succession certificate w as obtained from Court in another district i.e., Chandrapur Deceased died in Wardha district and immovable property in relation to which declaration was sought was also located in Wardha District Jurisdiction of Civil Court at Wardha not barred Court at Wardha possesses territorial jurisdiction Decision of Chandrapur Court would not come in the way of Civil Court at Wardha. Respondents filed a suit before Civil Judge, Wardha for declaration and cancellation of succession certificate. The immovable properties in relation to which declaration is sought is located in Wardha district while the petitioner obtained succession certificate from Court in another district i.e., Chandrapur. Declaration is also claimed in relation to Will allegedly executed by deceased and also in relation to succession certificate issued by Chandrapur Court. Thus, suit is not only for declaration that the succession certificate obtained by petitioner from Chandrapur Court is void. The fact that deceased died in Wardha district is not in dispute and the further facts that immovable property left behind by him is also situated in Wardha district are also not in dispute. In such circumstances, even if one ignores issue of succession certificate, still in view of provisions of Section 16 of Code of Civil Procedure, the Court at Wardha possesses territorial jurisdiction. In view of provisions of Section 387 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, it is apparent that decision of Chandrapur Court does not come in way of respondents in agitating these issues before Wardha Court in above mentioned Civil suit. Section 387 in clear terms specifies that decision under part X of Indian Succession Act upon any question or right between any parties cannot operate as bar for trial of same question in any substantive suit and it further stipulates that person receiving any security or alone or other interest of deceased on the basis of succession certificate granted under that part is liable to account therefor to the person lawfully found entitled thereto. Thus, even if respondents do not challenge the succession certificate, still in view of this provision Civil Court at Wardha is competent to consider the suit as filed and give relief to the respondents if it finds them eligible for the same. AIR 1960 J and K 76, AIR 1940 Pat 444, 2000(8) SCC 143, AIR 1915 All 163, ILR 25 All 48, 2001(3) All MR 720, Ref.

Judgment

( 1 ) THE petitioner in this petition under Article 226 and 227 of constitution of India is original defendant. The present respondents have filed a suit before civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha vide r. C. S. 1/1998 for declaration and cancellation of succession certificate. The immovable properties in relation to which declaration is sought is located in Wardha District while the petitioner obtained succession certificate from court another district i. e. Chandrapur. One of the declarations prayed for by present respondents is that the succession certificate is obtained by fraud. The present petitioner who is defendant, challenged the territorial jurisdiction and contended that suit of such a nature ought to have been instituted at chandrapur only. Joint Civil Judge. Senior division, Wardha, upheld this objection on 12/3/2001 and ordered return of the plaint to present respondents for presentation to chandrapur court. The respondents challenged this order by filing Misc Civil Appeal 23/2001 and on 5/8/2002 the Additional District Judge, wardha. held that the Civil Court at Wardha had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and return of plaint was not proper. It is this order which has been challenged in present petition.

( 2 ) I have heard advocate Sohoni for petitioner and Advocate Wagh for the respondents. Considering the controversy, it has been heard finally at the admission stage. Hence, Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent.

( 3 ) ADVOCATE Sohoni appearing for petitioner states that one Rambharose Dubey, resident of Chandrapur executed a Will on 5/1/1995 and after his expiry on 6/2/1995 at seloo town in Wardha district, the Petitioners filed application for grant of succession certificate under Section 372 of Indian succession Act, 1925, on 1/1/1996 vide succession Case 1 of 1996 before Civil Judge senior Division, Chandrapur. The said court issued public notice, held inquiry and as no objections were received from anybody, it granted succession certificate in favour of petitioner vide order dated 2/5/1997. It is his contention that there was no fraud in the matter and if respondents want to challenge said succession certificate, they have to approach chandrapur court. The suit according to him was not cognizable by Wardha court and the order passed by trial court needs to be maintained. He has relied upon the judgment between Dukan Nand Lal Vs. Abdul Hafiz reported at A. I. R. 1960 Jammu and Kashmir 76 and between Sampat Lal Vs. Kaluram brijmohan reported at A. I. R. 1940 Patna 444. He contends that the Chandrapur court alone has jurisdiction to take cognizance of alleged fraud.

( 4 ) ADVOCATE Wagh contends that deceased Rambharose had immovable properties in territorial jurisdiction of Wardha court in Wardha district and it was joint family property which consisted of agricultural lands ad-measuring 13. 5 acres, 10 acres, a residential house-cum-Kotha and two residential houses. It is stated that Rambarose was younger brother of grand-father of present respondent 3. It is. stated that he died issueless on 6/2/1995 in wardha district and he also did not execute any will or gift. It is stated that amount of rs. 92. 333. 03/- (Rs. Ninety two thousand three nundred and thirty three and 3 paise only) was in his account with bank in Wardha. It is further stated that deceased was permanent resident of Seloo town in Wardha district and he was government employee. It is further stated that in such circumstances petitioner (original defendant) could not have filed succession case at Chandrapur. Certain material is also pointed out in plaint to show that deceased was living in Wardha only. It is in this background that present respondent No. 2 and his father instituted above mentioned Civil Suit in wardha court pointing out all these aspects. They also contended that the alleged will dated 5/1/1995 of deceased is bogus and fraudulent document. It is contended that in application filed before Ch







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top