JAG MOHAN TRIPATHI Vs. BABA ANNAPURNADAS KATTHIYA BABA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/objector later who became the non-applicant in the matter before the Trial Court has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 18.05.2013 passed by the IV Civil Judge Class-I, Jabalpur in Succession Case No.56/2012 whereby his application Annexure P-2 filed under Section 371 of the Indian Succession Act (in short the Act) read with Section 20 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, either to transfer the case to some competent Court of District Umaria or to return the case filed by the respondent No.1 herein under Section 372 of the Act to such respondent to file the same before the competent Court of Umaria, has been dismissed.

(2.) Petitioner's counsel after taking me through the averments of the petition along with the papers placed on record so also the impugned order argued that the deceased Baba Sukhdeo Das Katthiya was neither the resident of Jabalpur nor was having any substantial property in his own name at Jabalpur, in fact he being the resident of Chandia District Umaria in his life time was having the Ashram and other properties there. He has given his address to all the concerning Banks of the aforesaid place of Chandia, District Umaria and the maximum amount of the deceased has been deposited in different Banks of Chandia. His name is also recorded in the voter-list of Chandia. Even on his demise, his funeral was also carried out at Chandia and thereafter, in his memory some construction was also made in Chandia. So in such premises, merely on account of his some fixed deposit amount receipt of some Bank of Jabalpur does not give any right to respondent to file the proceeding for succession certificate at Jabalpur. He further stated that as per the available record, the name of deceased Baba Sukhdeo Das Katthiya is recorded in Khasra of the land situated in District Umaria. The electricity bill of the said place was also annexed with the petition and prayed that in such a situation the impugned case of the respondent No.1 was wrongly entertained by the Trial court at Jabalpur and prayed to allow his application Annexure P-2 by setting aside the impugned order of the Trial Court by admitting and allowing this petition. In support of his contention he has also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the matter of Chandrakala Doble (Smt.) and others V. Shyam Rao Doble and others, 1999 2 JabLJ 51.

(3.) Keeping in view the arguments advanced by the arguing counsel, I have carefully gone through the papers placed on record and averments made in the petition as well as the impugned order. It is settled proposition of law that the question relating jurisdiction of the Court over the matter is considered keeping in view the provision of Sections 15 to 20 of C.P.C. if no specific provision is available under the specific enactment on the basis of the averments made in the plaint or the application of the plaintiff or the applicant, as the case may be, such question is also decided by the Court taking into consideration the specific provisions of the concerned Act in which the proceeding is filed. If such Act provides the provisions that which Court shall entertain such proceedings. In the case at hand, the Court has to examine the aforesaid question keeping in view the provision of Section 371 of the Act so also the provisions of Sections 15 to 20 of the C.P.C. Before proceeding further, I deem fit to reproduce Section 371 of the Act, for ready reference. The same is read as under :-