LAWS(BOM)-1976-2-7

VERA D THACKERSEY Vs. BAI MANEKBAI ANNASAHEB THACKERSEY

Decided On February 11, 1976
VERA D.THACKERSEY Appellant
V/S
BAI MANEKBAI ANNASAHEB THACKERSEY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 16th April 1975 passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Poona, returning to the petitioner, who is the appellant before us, her application for letters of administration together with all documents, for presentation to the District Judge, Poona, under Section 288 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

(2.) On 6th October 1973, one D. A. Tha-kersey died intestate at Poona, leaving a large estate. His widow, namely the appellant, filed Application No. (146 of 1974) 376 of 1974 for letters of administration in the Court of the learned District Judge at Poona. This application was ordered to be registered on 20th June 1974. On 24th June 1974, the learned District Judge transferred the matter for disposal to the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Poona. Thereafter, the deceased's mother, one Manekbai, who is the respondent before us, filed a caveat, the contents whereof are not material for the purpose of this judgment. She also challenged the jurisdiction of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Poona to hear and decide the application, on the ground that the latter was merely the District Judge's delegate and the matter having become a contentious one, by reason of the filing of the caveat, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, was liable to return the application for presentation to the Court of the learned District Judge, under Section 288 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. This contention of the respondent found favour with the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Poona, who by her judgment and order dated 16th April 1975, ordered the application and documents to be returned to the appellant for presentation to the District Judge, Poona, Hence the present appeal.

(3.) In challenging the correctness of the impugned judgment and order, it was contended by Mr. Agarwal, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, that the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Poona, misconstrued the provisions of Section 288 of the Indian Succession Act, as also that there was some misappreciation on her part as to her own powers to hear and decide the matter. Mr. Agarwal urged that the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, was not the District Judge's delegate and that she, viz. the former, had jurisdiction to hear and decide the application, irrespective of the fact that the same had become contentious by reason of the filing of the caveat by the respondent.