Does the notification issued under Section 388 of the Indian Succession Act empower the munsiff to entertain an application under Section 372, the valuation of which exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction conferred on him under Section 13 of the Kerala Civil Courts Act?

2. Respondents 1 to 5 are the children of one K.M.Parvathy Amma. They had a brother by name Narayanan, who while working as a sub engineer in Kerala State Electricity Board, died in a motor accident on 24.02.1998. He was survived by his wife, Vasanthakumari and daughter, Chitra. Later, his mother, K.M.Parvathy Amma, died. His wife, Vasanthakumari and daughter, Chitra died on 27.04.2009. The petitioner is his mother-in-law. In O.P(MV) No.932 of 1998 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal a certain amount was awarded as compensation for his death. An amount of Rs.1,76,029/- has been deposited in the Tribunal towards compensation. Certain amounts have been deposited with the 6th and 7th respondent banks in the names of Vasanthakumari and Chitra. Respondents 1 to 5 filed a petition under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act for a succession certificate in the court of munsiff. The total amount in respect of which the certificate was applied is above Rs.4,50,000/-. The petitioner contended that Chitra died first and respondents 1 to 5 are not the legal heirs of Vasanthakumari and she (the petitioner) alone is her legal heir. The learned munsiff conducted an enquiry and found that the death of Vasanthakumari and Chitra was simultaneous and the presumption under Section 21 of the Hindu Succession Act is that Vasanthakumari died first. The court, therefore, held that the petitioner and respondents 1 to 5 are the legal heirs of Narayanan, and accordingly, it ordered issuance of succession certificate in their favour. The petitioner challenged it in appeal. The additional district judge who heard the appeal dismissed it confirming the order of the learned Munsiff. This is assailed in this revision petition.

3. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is two fold.

(1) Munsiff court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the amount claimed was above Rs.1,00,000/- which was the limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of that court under Section 19 of the Kerala Civil Courts Act.

(2) The finding that the death of Vasanthakumari and Chitra was simultaneous is illegal because evidence could have been adduced to prove who died first.

4. Under Section 371 of the Indian Succession Act District Judge has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain an application filed under Section 372 of the Act. But Section 388 of the Act empowers the state government to confer the powers of the district judge on any other court. Accordingly, the government of Kerala have issued two notifications on 06.02.1958, which read as follows:

"i) In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 388 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (Act XXXIX of 1925), and in supersession of all previous notifications investing courts of subordinate judges with power to exercise the functions of a District Judge under Part X of the said Act, the Government of Kerala hereby invest all courts of subordinate judges in the State with power to exercise the functions of a District Judge under Part X of the Act within the local limits of their respective jurisdiction.

ii) In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (I) of Section 388 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (Act XXXIX of 1925) and in supersession of all previous notifications investing courts of Munsiffs with power to exercise the functions of a District Judge under Part X of the said Act, the Government of Kerala hereby invest all courts of Munsiffs in the State with power to exercise the functions of a District Judge under Part X of the Act within the local limits of the respective jurisdiction."

5. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the jurisdiction conferred by the notifications is only o