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

2024 Supreme(Ker) 145

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANU SIVARAMAN, C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, JJ.
Lekshmi M. Nair, D/o. (Late) R. Muraleedharan Nair - Appellant
Versus
Sudhamony Amma C.K., W/o Late R. Muraleedharan Nair & Ors. - Respondents
MFA (Succession) No. 3 of 2023
Decided On : 23-02-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : P.B. Krishnan, P.B. Subramanyan, Sabu George, B. Anusree, Manu Vyasan Peter, Deepa Noble.
For the Respondent: K.S. Hariharaputhran, Pinku Mariam Jose, Anil Kumar T.P.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the District Court has jurisdiction to grant and revoke probate and letters of administration in cases specifically covered under Section 57(c) of the Indian Succession Act, even in the absence of a notification under Section 264(2).

Headnote:

Indian Succession Act - Jurisdiction of District Court - Section 264(2) - Summary of Acts and Sections: Indian Succession Act, 1925, Section 264(1), Section 264(2), Section 57, Chapter IV of Part IX - The court discussed the jurisdiction of the District Court in granting and revoking probates and letters of administration under Section 264(1) and the requirement of a notification by the State Government under Section 264(2) in cases where Section 57 does not apply. The court also referred to the provisions of Chapter IV of Part IX and the interpretation of Section 57(c) in relation to the applicability of Section 264(2). The judgment analyzed the decision of the Apex Court in Ravinder Nath Agarwal v. Yogender Nath Agarwal and others and its implications on the jurisdiction of the District Court.

Fact of the Case:

The court considered the question of whether the District Court has jurisdiction to grant or revoke probates and letters of administration in the absence of a notification by the State Government under Section 264(2) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 264(1) and Section 264(2) in relation to the jurisdiction of the District Judge and the requirement of a notification.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the District Judge has jurisdiction to grant and revoke probate and letters of administration in all cases within his district under Section 264(1) of the Act. The court held that the necessity of a notification under Section 264(2) would arise only in cases where Section 57 does not apply. The court also clarified that the jurisdiction for granting and revoking of probates and letters of administration in all cases within the District is specifically vested under Section 264(1).

Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of Section 264(1) and Section 264(2) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and the applicability of Section 57 in relation to the requirement of a notification by the State Government for receiving applications for probate or letters of administration.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of Section 264(1) and Section 264(2) and their application in cases covered by Section 57(c) of the Indian Succession Act. The court emphasized that the District Court would be empowered to accept applications and grant and revoke probates and letters of administration in cases specifically covered under Section 57(c) even in the absence of a notification under Section 264(2).

Final Decision: The court allowed the MFA Succession, set aside the judgment under appeal, and remanded the matter to the District and Sessions Court, Alappuzha for appropriate consideration, in accordance with law.

JUDGMENT :

Anu Sivaraman, J.

The question raised for consideration before us by the Reference Order dated 9.1.2024 is whether, in the absence of a notification by the State Government under Section 264(2) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short, 'the Act'), the District Court has jurisdiction to grant or revoke probates and letters of administration.

2. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Natarajan T.K. v. T.K. Raman Achari [2023 (2) KHC 652] held that the courts within the State of Kerala have no jurisdiction to issue probate or letters of administration unless there is a notification by the State Government as mandated under Section 264(2). To come to the said conclusion, a decision of the Apex Court in Ravinder Nath Agarwal v. Yogender Nath Agarwal and others [2021 (1) KLT 1139 (SC) : AIR 2021 SC 3156] was relied on.

3. We have heard Sri. P.B. Krishnan, the learned counsel for the appellant ably assisted by Adv. Chithira Venugopal and Sri. K.S. Hariharaputhran, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the provisions of Section 264(1) of the Act which specifically provides that the District Judge shall have jurisdiction in granting and revoking probates and letters of administration in all cases within his district being clear and unambiguous, the provision in sub section (2) of the same Section would apply only to courts other than District Courts which are specifically provided with the jurisdiction under Section 264(1). It is further contended that it is only in cases to which Section 57 does not apply and where the deceased is a Hindu, Muhammadan, Buddhist, Sikh or Jain or an exempted person that a notification is required by the State Government for courts in local area beyond the limits of the towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay for receiving applications for probate or letters of administration. It is contended that since Section 57(c) provides that the provisions of the part shall apply to all wills and codicils made by Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh and Jaina on or after the first day of January, 1927. The will in question is the question being one made by a Hindu and not being covered by Section 57(a) and (b), is one covered by Section 57(c) and therefore, no notification is required under Section 264(2), it is contended.

5. The Indian Succession Act, 1925 defines a 'District Judge' to mean the Judge of a principal civil court of original jurisdiction. The present Act is divided into several parts. Part VI of the Act deals with testamentary succession. Section 57 provides for the application of certain provisions of Part to a class of Wills. Section 57(c) states that the provisions of Part VI which are set out in Schedule III shall, subject to the restrictions and modifications specified therein, apply to all Wills and codicils made by any Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jain on or after the first day of January, 1927 to which those provisions are not applied by clauses (a) and (b). The matters set out in Schedule III are admittedly the provisions of Part VI, that is, from Section 57 to Section 191 barring a few provisions. Section 264 of the Act figures in Part IX of the Act which provides for probate, letters of administration and administration of assets of deceased.

6. Chapter IV of Part IX of the Indian Succession Act deals with the practice in granting and revoking probates and letters of administration. Section 264 figures in Chapter IV and reads as follows :-

    “264. Jurisdiction of District Judge in granting and revoking probates, etc.

(1) The District Judge shall have jurisdiction in granting and revoking probates and letters of administration in all cases within his district.

(2) Except in cases to which section 57 applies, no court in any local area beyond the limits of the towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay shall, where the deceased is a Hindu, Muhammadan, Buddhist, Sikh or Jain or an exempted person, receive applications for probate or letters of admin

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