JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal by an unsuccessful caveator against the order of the Senior Sub Judge, Nahan (exercising powers of a District Judge under the Indian Succession Act) granting letters of Administration, with a copy of the will annexed, in favour of the respondent Chandanu.

2. Chandanu relied upon a registered will executed in his favour by Mst. Shankari on the 25th Baisakh 2005B. The caveator-appellant did not dispute the execution of the aforesaid will in favour of Chandanu. His case, on the other hand, was that the will in favour of Chandanu stood revoked by a subsequent will executed by Mst. Shankari in favour of appellant and his brother Zalmu on 2-3-51. Therefore, the point for determination, before the court below, was whether the will relied upon by Chandanu had or had not been revoked by the alleged subsequent will in favour of Durga Dutt and Zalmu. The learned Senior Sub Judge came to the conclusion that the will relied upon by the appellant had not been properly attested as required by the provisions of S. 63, Succession Act. Consequently, he rejected the caveat and granted letters of administration in favour of Chandanu. Hence, this appeal.

3. When this appeal came up for hearing on the 14th instant, doubt way expressed (a) whether the learned Senior Sub Judge had jurisdiction to deal with this matter and (b) whether the appeal lay to this Court. As far as (a) is concerned, para 25, H.P. (Courts) Order, 1948, empowers this Court to authorise any Subordinate Judge to take cognizance of, and any District Judge to transfer to a Subordinate Judge any proceedings or any class of proceedings under the Indian Succession Act. Under Notification No. J-1-49/48, dated 11-11-48, issued by the Officer on Special Duty with the Judicial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, all Senior Sub Judges in Himachal Pradesh, were authorised to deal with .all classes of cases under the Indian Succession Act.

The present case was filed in the Court of the District Judge, Mahasu and Sirmur, who transferred it subsequently to the Senior Sub-Judge, Nahan. Since a special provision of law will override its ordinary provisions, the transfer of the case to the Senior Sub-Judge must be deemed to be valid. I would, therefore, hold that the Senior Sub-Judge was competent to deal with the case.

4. As regards (b), the case was decided by the Senior Sub-Judge exercising the powers of a District Judge. I may point out that under para 25 (3) H.P. (Courts) Order, the proceedings in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge were subject to the rules applicable to like proceedings in the Court of the District Judge. This, in my opinion, would include the rules applicable to appeals. Appeals from the decisions of the District Judge lie to this Court. Therefore, the present appeal to this Court will also be competent. I am supported in my view by two rulings.

1. Baroda Debya v. Sm. Phutumani, AIR 1933 Pat 276 (2) (A). There a Division Bench of that High Court, with reference to S. 23, Bengal, North Western Provinces and Assam Civil Courts Act of 1887, held that :

"Where an application before a District Judge for Probate of a will is transferred by him to a Subordinate Judge under S. 23, Act 12 of 1887, an appeal from the Order of the Subordinate Judge lies to the High Court and not to the Court of District Judge."

2. Mt. Laso Devi v. Mt. Jagtamabha Devi, AIR 1936 Lah 378 (B). There Bhide, J. remarked as follows :

"A preliminary objection was taken that no appeal was competent inasmuch as the order in question was passed by a Senior Subordinate Judge, and S. 299 applies only to orders passed by a District Judge; but in the present instance the Senior Subordinate Judge was invested with powers of a District Judge for the grant of letters of administration and in the circumstances it seems to me that the case would be covered by S. 299, Succession Act, of AIR 1933 Pat 276 (2) (A) and Ss. 30 and 39, Punjab Courts Act."

5. Thus, both the preliminary objections fail.

6. Coming to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document