Important Points
" An application filed by recourse to Section 388(1) of the Act by that court exercising the power invested on it by the State Government by notification as sans such a notification the said inferior court would not have obtained jurisdiction to entertain such an application- Such an order could be assailed only by way of an appeal in terms of the proviso to Section 388(2) of the Act
" As noticed hereinbefore, going by the said provision against such an order by a court inferior in grade to the court of a District Judge an appeal will lie only before the Court of a District Judge-
" There would be no bar as to the pecuniary jurisdiction of District Judge, in such circumstances

C.T. Ravikumar, J.

The petitioner herein seeks to file appeal against an order dated 11.07.2017 in SOP No.21 of 2008, passed by the Court of the Additional Sub Judge-I, Thrissur, dismissing the same. The said Original Petition was filed under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for brevity 'the Act' only). The Registry has noted a defect to the effect that in the light of the provision under Section 384 of the Act an appeal against an order of the Sub Court in an application filed under Section 372 of the Act would not lie before the High Court. The counsel for the appellant sought to cure the defect stating thus:-

"Under Section 384, the appeal is provided only to the High Court, irrespective of valuation. Even if the valuation is considered it is above 2 lakhs and the petition is of 2008 and still the appeal lies to the High Court."

The Registry, upon considering the endorsement made by the learned counsel, stuck to its earlier stand regarding the defect noted and further pointed that based on the proviso to Section 388 (2) of the Act an appeal from an order of such an inferior court would lie to the District Judge and not to High Court. In such circumstances, at the instance of the learned counsel for the appellant, the matter is posted before us. Based on our order, copy of the appeal was provided to Standing Counsel appearing for the Guruvayur Devaswaom Board.

2. We have heard the learned counsel on both sides on the defect noted by the Registry. The point to be resolved is whether an order in an application filed under Section 372 of the Act passed by a Court inferior in grade to the Court of a District Judge is appealable before the District Court or is it appealable only before this Court ?

3. Sri.N.M.Mdhu, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in terms of the provisions under Section 384, an appeal against an order in an application filed under Section 372 of the Act will lie only to the High Court. The further submission is that going by the pecuniary jurisdiction as regards the case on hand also, an appeal will lie only to the High Court since the petition was instituted in the year 2008.

4. Per contra, Sri.P.Gopal, the learned Standing Counsel for the Guruvayur Devaswom Board submits that the defect noted by the Registry is to be upheld in the light of the proviso to Section 388 (2) of the Act. However, a perusal of sub-section (2) of Section 388 of the Act may convey an impression that such jurisdiction thereunder is concurrent jurisdiction as regards the District Judge and if it is viewed and understood in that manner, one may tend to think doubtfully about the appellate jurisdiction of the District Judge. In a bid to clarify the position the learned counsel drew our attention to sub-section (1) of Section 388, the proviso to sub-section (2) and sub-section (6) of Section 388, of the Act.

5. In the context of the contentions we are of the view that it is profitable to refer to Section 388(1), sub-section (2) thereof with its proviso as also its sub-section (6) and they read thus:-

"388. Investiture of inferior courts with jurisdiction of District Court for purposes of this Act.-(1)the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, invest any Court inferior in grade to a District Judge with power to exercise the functions of a District Judge under this Part.

(2) Any inferior Court so invested shall, within the local limits of its jurisdiction, have concurrent jurisdiction with the District Judge in the exercise of all the powers conferred by this Part upon the District Judge, and the provisions of this Part relating to the District Judge shall apply to such an inferior Court as if it were a District Judge.

Provided that an appeal from any such order of an inferior Court as is mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 384 shall lie to the District Judge, and not to the High Court, and that the District Judge may, if he thinks fit, by his order on the appeal, make any suc