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

2022 Supreme(Raj) 1744

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.
Smt. Leela Bai & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Smt. Rama Bai & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 444 of 2021
Decided On : 28-01-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Rajveer Sharma Through Vc, for the Appellant
Mr. Ajay Kumar Tanenia and Ms. Archana Mantri Through Vc, for the Respondent.

Territorial jurisdiction for granting a succession certificate under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is determined by the provisions contained under Sections 371 and 372 of the Act.

Headnote:

Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Territorial Jurisdiction - The court allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the lower court to decide the succession application afresh, emphasizing the need to consider the provisions contained under Sections 371 and 372 of the Act of 1925.

Fact of the Case:

The applicants sought a succession certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, following the death of the deceased. The lower court dismissed the application citing territorial jurisdiction as the deceased was residing in a different location at the time of death.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the lower court had overlooked the provisions contained under Sections 371 and 372 of the Act of 1925 and allowed the appeal, quashing the impugned order and remanding the matter to the lower court for fresh consideration.

Issues: The main issue was the territorial jurisdiction of the court to entertain the application for a succession certificate under the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to consider the provisions contained under Sections 371 and 372 of the Act of 1925 in determining the territorial jurisdiction for granting a succession certificate.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the lower court to decide the succession application afresh, emphasizing the need to consider the provisions contained under Sections 371 and 372 of the Act of 1925.

JUDGMENT

1. With the consent of counsel appearing for both the parties, the matter is heard finally at this stage.

2. The present appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 1925') is directed against the order dated 04.12.2020 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Kota (for short 'the learned Court below') in civil misc. application No. 125/2020, by which the application filed under Section 372 of the Act of 1925 has been dismissed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.

3. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the applicants submitted an application under Section 372 of the Act of 1925 before the learned Court below for getting succession certificate.

4. It was pleaded in the application that the husband and father of the applicants, namely, Shri Bal Kishan was a Senior Clerk under the West Central Railway, Kota Division and while serving, he expired on 02.04.2018. After death of Bal Kishan, the applicants and the respondents approached the authorities to get the terminal benefits of the deceased. However, the authorities directed them to get succession certificate from the competent court of law.

5. In pursuance of the said direction, the applicants submitted an application under Section 372 of the Act of 1925 before the learned Court below. The learned Court below dismissed the said application on the ground of territorial jurisdiction by observing that at the time of death, the deceased was residing at Shyamgarh, Mandsor (M.P.), hence, the Court below has no jurisdiction to entertain the application.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 04.12.2020 passed by the learned Court below, the applicants-appellants have preferred this appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants has placed reliance upon the provisions contained under Sections 371 and 372 of the Act of 1925, which reads thus:-

    "371. Court having jurisdiction to grant certificate.- The District Judge within whose jurisdiction the deceased ordinarily resided at the time of his death, or, if at that time he had no fixed place of residence, the District Judge, within whose jurisdiction any part of the property of the deceased may be found, may grant a certificate under this Part.

    372. Application for certificate.- (1) Application for such a certificate shall be made to the District Judge by a petition signed and verified by or on behalf of the applicant in the manner prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the signing and verification of a plaint by or on behalf of a plaintiff, and setting forth the following particulars, namely:-

    (a) the time of the death of the deceased;

    (b) the ordinary residence of the deceased at the time of his death and, if such residence was not within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Judge to whom the application is made, then the property of the deceased within those limits;

    (c) the family or other near relatives of the deceased and their respective residences;

    (d) the right in which the petitioner claims;

    (e) the absence of any impediment under section 370 or under any other provision of this Act or any other enactment, to the grant of the certificate or to the validity thereof if it were granted; and

    (f) the debts and securities in respect of which the certificate is applied for.

    (2) If the petition contains any averment which the person verifying it knows or believes to be false, or does not believe to be true, that person shall be deemed to have committed an offence under section 198 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860).

    (3) Application for such a certificate may be made in respect of any debt or debts due to the deceased creditor or in respect of portions thereof."

    8. It appears that while deciding the application filed by the applicants-appellants, the learned Court below has not taken into consideration the provisions contained under Section 371 of the Act of 1925 which categorically states that the Dis

    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