ROHINI AND ORS. Vs. VISHAKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Sec. 372, of the Indian Succession Act 39 of 1925, (for short 'the Act') by the petitioners for grant of Succession Certificate for debts and securities left by Smt. Vishakha, W/o Late Shri Purushottam Dixit, Retd. Chief Justice of M.P., r/o 361-362, Saket. Indore. The petitioners are the daughters of Smt. Vishakha Dixit, who died intestate on 4-4-1987 at Bombay.

(2.) The petitioners have invoked the original jurisdiction of this court for the grant of Succession Certificates. According to Sec. 372, of the Act, the application for grant of Succession Certificate is to be made to the Court of District Judge. For the purposes of the Act, the High Court is having concurrent original jurisdiction in the matter of grant of Succession Certificate.

(3.) The term of District Judge is defined in Sec. 2(b) of the Act as the Judge of principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction and the term 'District Judge' has been constituted by long chain of decisions of the High Court in this Country to include the High Court Judge within the presidency towns. The Nagpur High Court in the case Vishnu Murlidhar and others (1944 N.L.J. 264) did not fall within the definition of 'District Judge'. It was held in the case of Vishnu Murlidhar and others, (supra) that the Nagpur High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an application for grant of Succession Certificate under section 372 (1) of the Succession Act. In that case it was further observed that even if, it is assumed that the High Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the District Court, the application must be presented to the Court of lowest jurisdiction. The fact that the part of the property of the deceased is situated in England, will not make any difference in this position.