High Court cannot grant succession certificate.

D. Murugesan, J.

The present Original Side Appeal raises an important question as to whether the High Court would have jurisdiction to entertain an Original Petition filed under Sections 300, 370 to 372 of the Indian Succession Act read with Order XXV Rule 6 of the Original Side Rules for issue of succession certificate.

2. Factual matrix leading to the appeal is as follows:-

One P.Mahalingam died intestate on 13. 2002 at Thiruveedhiamman Koil Street, Peria

Koluthuvan Cherry, Paraniputhur & Post, Iyyappanthangal, Chennai. He left the

following persons as his Class I legal heirs:

S.No.

Particulars of the Class-I legal heirs

Relationship with the deceased

Devi (2nd respondent)

Widow

2

Mrs.B.Sumathi (1st respondent)

Daughter

3

M.Suresh (Appellant)

Son

The deceased was entitled to receive a sum of Rs.87,333/-towards gratuity and group insurance from his employer namely, Sri Ramachandra Medical College and Research Institute, Porur, Chennai and a sum of Rs.83,740/-towards provident fund from the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Tambaram, Chennai. Hence the appellant filed the above unnumbered Original Petition before this Court for the issue of succession certificate to collect the above dues from the employer of the deceased and the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Chennai.

3. As the maintainability of the petition was doubted on the ground that as per Section 371 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short, the "Act"), 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 and the District Judge within whose jurisdiction any part of the property may be found, may alone grant a certificate, the petition was posted before the Court for consideration as to the maintainability. By order dated 111. 2006, the learned single Judge found that the unnumbered Original Petition for issue of succession certificate is not maintainable before this Court. Questioning the said order, the present appeal has been filed.

4. We have heard Mr.M.S.Mani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

.5. For the grant of succession certificate, the Succession Certificate Act 7 of 1889 was enacted. The power to issue succession certificate was vested in the "District Court" under the said Act. The word "District Court" was defined as meaning a Court presided over by a District Judge and as the provisions of that Act referred to only a "District Court", no petitions were made to the High Court for grant of succession certificate.

.6. The Succession Certificate Act 7 of 1889 was repealed by the Indian Succession Act 39 of 1925. Initially, as the Act did not define "District Judge", by Amendment Act 18 of 1929, which came into effect from 10. 1929, Section 2(bb) was introduced and the said section reads as under:-

."(bb) District Judge" means the Judge of a Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction."

7. Chapter IV of Part IX of the Act deals with the practice in granting and revoking probates and letters of administration. Some of the relevant provisions necessary for the disposal of the appeal are 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 Jaina or an exempted person, receive applications for probate and letters of administration until the State Government has, by a notification in the Official Gazette, authorised it to do.

266. District Judges powers as to grant probate and administration--The District Judge shall have the like powers and authority in relation to the granting of probate and letters of administration, and all matt