The District Court has jurisdiction to grant probates even without a notification under Section 264(2) for cases specified in Section 57(c) of the Indian Succession Act.

JUDGMENT

Anu Sivaraman, J.

The question raised for consideration before us by the Reference Order dated 9.1.2024 is whether, in the absence of a notification by the State Government under Section 264 (2) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short, 'the Act'), the District Court has jurisdiction to grant or revoke probates and letters of administration.

2. A learned Single Judge of this Court inNatarajan T.K. v. T.K. Raman Achari [ 2023 (2) KHC 652 ] held that the courts within the State of Kerala have no jurisdiction to issue probate or letters of administration unless there is a notification by the State Government as mandated under Section 264 (2). To come to the said conclusion, a decision of the Apex Court inRavinder Nath Agarwal v. Yogender Nath Agarwal and others [ 2021 (1) KLT 1139 (SC) : AIR 2021 SC3156 ] was relied on.

3. We have heard Sri.P. B. Krishnan, the learned counsel for the appellant ably assisted by Adv. Chithira Venugopal and Sri.K. S.Hariharaputhran, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the provisions of Section 264 (1) of the Act which specifically provides that the District Judge shall have jurisdiction in granting and revoking probates and letters of administration in all cases within his district being clear and unambiguous, the provision in sub section (2) of the same Section would apply only to courts other than District Courts which are specifically provided with the jurisdiction under (1). It is further contended that it is only in cases to which Section 57 does not apply and where the deceased is a Hindu, Muhammadan, Buddhist, Sikh or Jain or an exempted person that a notification is required by the State Government for courts in local area beyond the limits of the towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay for receiving applications for probate or letters of administration. It is contended that since (c) provides that the provisions of the part shall apply to all wills and codicils made by Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh and Jaina on or after the first day of January, 1927. The will in question being one made by a Hindu and not being covered by (a) and (b), is one covered by (c) and therefore, no notification is required under (2), it is contended.

5. The Indian Succession Act, 1925 defines a 'District Judge'to mean the Judge of a principal civil court of original jurisdiction. The present Act is divided into several parts. Part VI of the Act deals with testamentary succession. Section 57 provides for the application of certain provisions of Part to a class of Wills. (c) states that the provisions of Part VI which are set out in Schedule III shall, subject to the restrictions and modifications specified therein, apply to all Wills and codicils made by any Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jain on or after the first day of January, 1927 to which those provisions are not applied by clauses (a) and (b). The matters set out in Schedule III are admittedly the provisions of Part VI, that is, from to Section 191 barring a few provisions. Section 264 of the Act figures in Part IX of the Act which provides for probate, letters of administration and administration of assets of deceased.

6. Chapter IV of Part IX of the Indian Succession Act deals with the practice in granting and revoking probates and letters of administration. Section 264 figures in Chapter IV and reads as follows :-

“264. Jurisdiction of District Judge in granting and revoking probates, etc.

(1) The District Judge shall have jurisdiction in granting and revok