ALICE SEQUEIRA Vs. L MIRANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises in this petition is whether the application filed by the petitioner for transfer of the proceedings from the Court of the District Judge, Coorg, Mercara to the Court of the District Judge, S.K.Mangalore is maintainable.

(2.) The few facts which are necessary for decision of the said question are: Mary D'Zouance Gutinha and L.Miranda are the petitioners in C.M.C.No.21 of 1964 filed in the Court of the District Judge of Coorg, Mercara. This was an application under Ss. 192, 194 and 195 of Part VII and S.267 of Part IX of the Indian Succession Act. The petitioners are respondents 1 and 2 in the said application. In the said proceedings objection was raised that the application is not maintainable in that Court. Accordingly, the learned District Judge has framed the issues on 17-2-1965 and the first issue is "Has the Court jurisdiction". The contention of the petitioners appears to be that the proceedings filed before the court of the District Judge at Coorg, Mercara was not maintainable, and therefore, they have raised the question with regard to the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the proceedings. In the meanwhile, the present Civil Petition has been filed under S.24 CPC. asking this Court to transfer this petition to the Court of the District Judge, S.K.Mangalore.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that even though they have challenged the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the proceedings, the application filed under S.24 is maintainable and reliance was placed upon two judgments; one is the judgment of the High Court of Patna in Shyam Nandandahay v. Dhanpati Kuer, AIR 1960 Pat. 244, and the other is the judgment of the High Court of Kerala in Mohamed Haji v. Saithu Mohamed, AIR 1962 Ker. 28. In my view, having regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case in Raja Soap Factory v. S.P.Shantharaj, AIR 1965 SC 1649, the application filed by the present petitioners for transfer under S.24 is not maintainable. In paragraph 7 of the judgment referred to above, this is what has been laid down by the Supreme Court :-