RATNA BAI Vs. MAKHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application to revise the order of the District Judge, Hyderabad, dated 4th March, 1955, whereby he rejected the application under section 383 of the Indian Succession Act.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are : One Makhan Singh applied for succession certificate in respect of the debts due to one Santa Singh and obtained the same on 29th September, 1954. The present petitioner is the wife of the brother of the deceased. Admittedly the deceased died intestate leaving no issues. The only near relative was the petitioner, Ratna Bai. But Makhan Singh without showing the name of this preferential heir in the application that he filed prayed for a succession certificate and obtained the same. The petitioner therefore has applied for I revocation of the succession certificate on various grounds under section 383. Apart from the ground shown above her contention is that in as much as the deceased died in the railway quarters which was within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the District Court, Secunderabad, the District Court at Hyderabad had no jurisdiction to grant any succession certificate. The learned District Judge on the basis of the evidence adduced came to the conclusion that Ratna Bai, the present petitioner, is a preferential heir to the deceased and the respondent who had obtained the succession certificate had failed to establish how he was related to the deceased. He also held that the deceased died in railway quarters, Lalaguda which lay within the territorial jurisdiction of the Secunderabad District Court and that the District Court at Hyderabad had therefore no jurisdiction to award a succession certificate. Despite such finding, the learned Judge refused to revoke the certificate already granted on the ground that admittedly all the debts due under the certificate were" already collected and the revocation was therefore of no consequence so far as the petitioner was concerned. He also observed that since she has a civil remedy open against the respondent for the recovery of the amounts, there was no occasion to revoke the certificate. It is against this order that the petitioner has come in revision.

(3.) It is contended that in as much as the grounds shown and substantiated by the petitioner were sufficient to warrant revocation of certificate under section 383, the fact that debts were already collected is not a bar for the revocation of the certificate and it was obligatory on the learned Judge to order revocation. For a correct appreciation of the point it is necessary to go through the provisions of section 383 and the scheme of the Indian Succession Act in that regard. Section 383 reads thus :