ORDER :- This revision is directed against an order of the District Judge, Agra, dated 11th October, 1976. The opposite parties had moved an application 36C stating that the Court of District Judge at Agra had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for the grant of letters of administration. The prayer was that until this point of jurisdiction was decided, the filing of the written statement by the opposite parties may be deferred. The learned District Judge by his aforesaid order rejected the application. The present revision has been filed against the above order.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that unless there was a notification in the official gazette by the State Government as contemplated under S. 264 (2) of the Indian Succession Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the District Judge had no jurisdiction for granting letters of administration with the Will annexed. He urged that the opposite parties had not been able to show the existence of such a notification and, as such, the Court of District Judge at Agra had no jurisdiction to entertain the petitions for the grant of letters of administration.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and, in my opinion, the contention raised by the learned counsel is wholly misconceived. Sec. 264 (1) of the Act makes it clear that the District Judge has jurisdiction in granting and revoking probates and letters of administration in all cases within his district. Section 264 (2) of the Act makes it clear that except in cases to which S. 57 of the Act applies, no court shall (apart from local limits of the towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay) receive applications for probate or letters of administration until the State Government has by notification in the official gazette authorised it so to do. It is evident that where S. 57 applies, notification is not necessary. Section 57 of the Act has three sub-clauses. Sub-cl. (c) is relevant. Section 57 read with sub-cl. (c) reads as follows :

" Sec. 57 (c). The provisions of this part which are set out in Sch. III shall, subject to the restrictions and modifications specified therein, apply -

(c) to all wills and codicils made by any Hindu, Budhist, Sikh or Jaina on or after the first day of January, 1927, to which those provisions are not applied by clauses (a) and (b)."

4. It is apparent from a perusal of the above that where a will has been made by a Hindu, Budhist, Sikh or Jaina on or after the 1st day of January, 1927, and to which sub-clauses (a) and (b) do not apply, the provisions of part VI of the Act would apply subject to the restrictions and modifications specified in Sch. III. Schedule III lays down five restrictions and modifications. There is no dispute that none of these five clauses have any application in the present case. Admittedly, in the present case, the date of the execution of the will is after the 1st January, 1927, and the deceased was a Hindu. Consequently the provisions of S. 57 are attracted and in view of the language of S. 264 (2) of the Act, there was no necessity of a notification in the official gazette empowering the District Judge to entertain petitions for probates and letters of administration and grant the same. It therefore follows that the District Judge has jurisdiction to entertain petitions and grant letters of administration.

5. For the reasons given above, I find no merits in this revision. It is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs. The stay order is vacated, and the record of the case shall be forthwith sent down to the Court below so that the further proceedings are done expeditiously.

Revision dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document