1979 Supreme(Mad) 216
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. Nainar Sundaram, J.
Antony Viagulam Fernando, through his power of Attorney Augustine …..Appellant(s)
Versus
The Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) Kovilpatti, Tirunelveli District …..Respondent(s)
C.R.P. No. 605 of 1977.
Decided On : 18 April 1979
K. Parasaran, for Petitioner.
K. Venkataswami, Additional Government Pleader, for Respondent.
Authorised officer whether in Court or a Court of Justice under Indian Succession Act.
Headnote:Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961-Succession Act, 1925-Section 213(1) -Authorized Officer exercising jurisdiction under the Act whether a Court or a Court of justice u/s 213 of Indian Succession Act.
2. Aggrieved by the order of the Authorised Officer, the landowner preferred an appeal C.M.A. (L.T.) No. 2 of 1976 which was heard and disposed of by the Land Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Tuticorin and the Land Tribunal except with regard to the settlements in favour of the daughter Marina, found no justification for interference and dismissed the appeal. In respect of the lands covered by the settlements in favour of the daughter Marina, the Land Tribunal directed that the matter could be agitated in the course of the enquiry under section 10 (5) of the Act. The present revision is directed against the judgment and decree of the Land Tribunal.
3. Mr. K. Parasaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner impeaches the judgment of the Land Tribunal on four grounds. It must be noted that the submissions of the learned counsel are only on the very same four grounds on which the Land Tribunal would not countenance the claims of the landowner. The first ground on which the Land Tribunal declined to countenance the will dated 30th May, 1967, said to have been executed by the son Selvakumar is that, the said Will will come within the mischief of section 213 (1) of the Indian Succession Act, (XXXIX of 1925) Section 213 (1) reads as follows:
"No right as executor or legatee can be established in any Court of justice, unless a Court of competent jurisdiction in India has granted probate of the will under which the right is claimed, or has granted letters of administration with the will or with a copy of an authenticated copy of the will annexed’‘.
The will is stated to have been executed by the deceased Selvakumar in Ceylon. There is no dispute that with regard to the will in question no Court of competent jurisdiction in India has granted probate of the same or granted letters of administration with the will or with a copy of an authenticated copy of the will annexed within the meaning of section 213 (1) of the Indian Succession Act. The submission of Mr. K. Parasaran on this question is, the Authorised Officer functioning under the Act is neither a ‘Court’ nor a ‘Court of justice’, so that it could be stated that the satisfacti