The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 371 of the Indian Succession Act regarding the jurisdiction for granting a succession certificate.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the order passed by the court below rejecting the application under Sec. 372 on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction to decide the matter. The respondent has put in appearance and has no objection if the appeal is allowed and the succession certificate is granted to the appellant.

( 2 ) THE main ground on which the application has been rejected was that according to the court below it had no jurisdiction in the matter. It has been mentioned that in view of Section 371 of the Indian Succession Act the court of the place where the deceased had ordinarily resided at the time of his death or where the deceased had property only had jurisdiction to try the case under Section 372. The learned counsel for the appellant has filed a certified copy of the application moved under Section 372 of the Act, in para 7 whereof it has been specifically mentioned that the deceased had his immoveable property within the jurisdiction of the court. Section 371 of the Act provides that :"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. "

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the learned counsel the deceased was possessed with the property within the jurisdiction of the Court and as such under the later part of Sec. 371 it had jurisdiction to grant the certificate. A reading of Section 371, however, shows that it is only in those cases in which the deceased at the time of his death had no fixed place of residence that recourse to the second part of the Section could be taken. In this case there is no allegation in the application that at the time of death the deceased had no fixed place of his residence. The claim made in the petition was in respect of the Provident Fund and Gratuity amount lying with his employers, the Hindustan Steel Ltd. , Bokaro City, Dhanbad. This shows that Bokaro in Dhanbad was his fixed place of residence at the time of his demise. It cannot, therefore, be said that the second part of the Section would be applicable in the instant case.

( 4 ) IN the result I find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly rejected. However, the appellant will be free to move necessary application for grant of succession certificate in a court of proper jurisdiction. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

( 5 ) A certified copy of this order may be supplied to the learned counsel on payment of usual charges within one week. Appeal dismissed.

.