The High Court has the power to invest Civil Judges with all or any of the powers of a District Judge, including the power to decide contentious matters relating to letters of administration or probate.

LENTIN, J. :- This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 16th April 1975 passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Poona, returning to the petitioner, who is the appellant before us, her application for letters of administration together with all documents, for presentation to the District Judge, Poona, under S.288 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

2. On 6th October 1973, one D.A. Thakersey died intestate at Poona, leaving a large estate. His widow, namely the appellant, filed Application No. (146 of 1974) 376 of 1974 for letters of administration in the Court of the learned District Judge at Poona. This application was ordered to be registered on 20th June 1974. On 24th June 1974, the learned District Judge transferred the matter for disposal to the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Poona. Thereafter, the deceased's mother, one Manekbai, who is the respondent before us, filed a caveat, the contents whereof are not material for the purpose of this judgment. She also challenged the jurisdiction of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Poona to hear and decide the application, on the ground that the latter was merely the District Judge's delegate and the matter having become a contentious one, by reason of the filing of the caveat, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, was liable to return the application for presentation to the Court of the learned District Judge, under S.288 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. This contention of the respondent found favour with the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Poona, who by her judgment and order dated 16th April 1975, ordered the application and documents to be returned to the appellant for presentation to the District Judge, Poona, Hence the present appeal.

3. In challenging the correctness of the impugned judgment and order, it was contended by Mr. Agarwal, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, that the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Poona, misconstrued the provisions of S.288 of the Indian Succession Act, as also that there was some misappreciation on her part as to her own powers to hear and decide the matter. Mr. Agarwal urged that the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, was not the District Judge's delegate and that she, viz. the former, had jurisdiction to hear and decide the application, irrespective of the fact that the same had become contentious by reason of the filing of the caveat by the respondent.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Paranjape, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, attempted to justify the correctness of the impugned judgment and order on several grounds. He contended that the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, was merely the delegate of the learned District Judge who alone had the jurisdiction to hear the matter as the same had become contentious by reason of the filing of the caveat. He further contended that the High Court had no power whatsoever to invest any Judge subordinate to the District Judge to try a contentious matter pertaining to letters of administration or probate. He also attempted to justify the impugned order on the ground that S.264 of the Succession Act, 1925, was in direct conflict with S.28-A of the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869. He also contended that the High Court's power of delegation was circumscribed statutorily by S.265(1) of the Succession Act, which factor was brought to the forefront by the provisions of S.272 which dealt with delegation only in the case of non-contentious matters. Finally, Mr. Paranjape contended that the District Judge was persona designata, with the result that the delegation under S.28-A(1) of the Bombay Civil Courts Act was bad in law. According to Mr. Paranjape, the High Court could appoint a District Delegate under S.265 of the Succession Act in connection with non-contentious cases only, which was the only power which was vested in the High Court.

5. Our atte