SUNIL S/O. RAJU SALAMPURE .. PETITIONER AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. LABOUR, R/O. PAHADSINGPURA, BEGAMPURA, AURANGABAD Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA RESPONDENTS THROUGH COLLECTOR, COLLECTOR OFFICE, AURANGABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent.

(2.) The learned Adhoc District Judge-2 by relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Nola Jonathan Ranbhise Vs. The Union of India and Ors., 2014(4) ALL MR 181, held that the appeal filed under section 388 of the Indian Succession Act, 1955 is not maintainable before the Court of District Judge.

(3.) I think, the learned District Judge has gone way off the mark in applying the ratio of Smt. Nola (Supra). Said judgment considers Sec. 299 of the Indian Succession Act, wherein every order made under Chapter IV relating to practise in granting and revoking probates and letters of administration is appellable before the High Court. Said judgment, however, does not take into consideration the effect of section 388 of the said Act, which enables the State Government to invest in the Court inferior to the District Court by notification in the official gazette with power to exercise functions of the District Judge under Part X of Chapter 13 of the Indian Succession Act. Proviso to subsection (2) of Sec. 388 of the said Act shows that an appeal from any order of an inferior Court shall lie not to the High Court but to the District Court. This statutory provision is clear and it enables a notified interior Court to exercise the powers and when the order is passed by the notified inferior Court, such order is appellable before the District Judge. Same view is taken by the learned Single Judge in the case of Smt. Vitthal Ramchandra Mali Vs. Smt. Laxmi Ganpati Mali and Anr., 2006(4) ALL MR 389.