ELIZABETH ANTONY Vs. M C G C LOAGMORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is directed against the order of the Court below striking out the caveat filed by the petitioner in O.P. No. 23 of 1980, Sub-Court. Nili-girls at Ootacamund, on an application taken out in that regard by the respondent herein under sections 283 and 284 read with section 285 of that Indian Succession Act XXXIX of 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The circumstances giving rise to the revision petition are as follows:

(2.) IN O.P. No. 23 of 1980, Sub-Court, Nil-girls at Ootacamund, the respondent herein, claiming to be a beneficiary to the estate of one Mary Aline Browne who died on 23rd March, 1972, under the terms of a will stated to have been executed by her on 12th March 1962, has filed an application for Letters of Administration with a copy of the will annexed. The testatrix Mary Aline Browne was the wife of Herbert Evander Browne, who was the eldest son of one John Browne. The testatrix had a daughter of the name of Zoe Enid Browne and she died on 8th October, 1977. The respondent prayed that he may be allowed to prove the will dated 12th March, 1962 executed by the testatrix in common form and had filed an affidavit of an attestor of the name of A.D. Dawson, IN that proceeding, the petitioner and her deceased husband had lodged a caveat on the ground that Mary Aline Browne did not execute any will and that the will propounded by the respondent herein was a fictitious and forged one intended to disentitle Zoe Enid Browne, daughter of the testatrix, from claiming any interest in the estate of her mother and also to prevent the petitioner from claiming rights under the will of Zoe Enid Browne dated 23rd June, 1975 and under a deed of gift stated to have been executed by her in favour of the petitioner, IN I.A.No.870 of 1981, the respondent put forward the plea that Zoe Enid Browne had at best only a life interest in certain properties and had no estate to bequeath and therefore, the petitioner did not have any interest in the estate of the deceased and further had no locus standi to file a caveat. This was repudiated by the petitioner on the ground that she had such an interest on the basis of the will dated 23rd June, 1975, a deed of gift stated to have been executed by Zoe Enid Browne and also in her capacity as a Trustee of John Browne Trust of Ootacamund.

(3.) IN support of this Civil Revision Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner, while not challenging the correctness of the factual conclusions, arrived at by the Court below, urged two points, The learned counsel first submitted that under section 288 of the Act, the Court below, being a district delegate, having regard to the contentious nature of the proceedings before it, ought to have returned O.P. No. 23 of 1980 to the respondent herein with a direction that that proceeding should be presented to the District Court and that without doing so, had proceeded to consider the same, to do which it had no jurisdiction. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that by virtue of the notification under section 29 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act, the District Court as well as the Sub-Court have concurrent jurisdiction in matters like this and it was therefore unnecessary for the Court to have resorted to a return of the petition under section 288 of the Act. Reliance in this connection was placed by the learned counsel for the respondent upon the decision of the Full Bench of this Court reported in R. Rama Subbarayalu Reddiar v. Rengammal 1and Annammal and others v. Santagu and others 2 .