KAUSHALYA DEVI Vs. AMRAWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition which has chequered history is directed against the order dated August 29, 1992 whereby proceedings pending in Court for grant of succession certificate have been stayed.

(2.) Bhagwanti Rai Sharma was employed as J.B.T. teacher in Government High School, Jamani and resided in village Pillukhera in district Jind where he died on July 30,1988. The petitioner claiming herself to be the widow of said Bhagwant Rai Sharma filed a petition under Sections 371 and 372 of the Indian Succession Act (for short 'the Act') in the Court of learned Senior Sub Judge, Jind on October 26, 1988 wherein claim was laid to the general Provident fund, gratuity and other pensionary benefits admissible on account of death of her husband late Bhagwant Rai Sharma. Learned Senior Sub Judge decided the matter by order dated February 1, 1989 directing the issuance of succession certificate in her favour. Before the said certificate could be issued Amarawati, respondent No. 1 herein, resident of Chatha Sekhwan, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur and Shakuntla Devi daughter of Amrawati moved an application under Section 383 of the Act for revocation of succession certificate ordered to be issued in favour of Kaushalya Devi, the present petitioner. It was alleged by them that they had moved the Court of learned Senior Sub Judge, Sangrur for grant of succession certificate on the death of Bhagwant Rai Sharma claiming themselves to be the widow and daughter respectively, of the said deceased, and that the Court at Sangrur granted succession certificate in their favour on a petition filed by them which was earlier in point of time to the petition filed by Kaushalya Devi in Jind. Amrawati also moved an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the Court of Senior Sub Judge Jind for stay of proceedings as succession certificate had already been granted in her favour by the Court at Sangrur on May 17, 1989. It may also be noticed that Kaushalya Devi also moved a petition under Section 383 of the Act in the Court at Sangrur for revocation of succession certificate issued in favour of Smt. Amrawati and another. In the circumstances, an application under Section 10 of the Code was pressed into service on the ground that proceedings at Sangrur were launched earlier in point of time and, therefore, the proceedings at Jind where the matter is directly and substantially the same, be stayed being subsequent to the proceedings initiated at Sangrur. Learned Senior Sub Judge, Jind finding that the property as also the parties to both the petitioners are the same and that admittedly, the petition was filed earlier in point of time at Sangrur concluded that general provisions of Section 10 of the Code would come into operation and consequently, stayed the proceedings at Jind and the file was ordered to be consigned to the record room and to be taken up after the decision of the petition pending at Sangrur. Aggrieved by this order of the Senior Sub Judge, Kaushalya Devi has filed the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a queer situation has arisen in the present proceedings. It was pointed out that the petitioner did not implead Amrawati and Shakuntla in her petition filed in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Jind and similarly, Amrawati and Shakuntla did not implead Kaushalya Devi as party to the petition filed by them at Sangrur. Kaushalya Devi did not oppose the grant of succession certificate in favour of Amrawati and Shakuntla and similarly, Amrawati and Shakuntla did not oppose the grant of succession certificate in favour of Kaushalya Devi. The reason seerhs to be that both the parties were ignorant of the proceedings against each other. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the provisions of Section 371 of the Act, submitted that the jurisdiction to grant a succession certificate is with the Court where the deceased ordinarily resided at the time of the his death and in case he had no fixed place of residence, the jurisdiction is with the Court within whose jurisdiction any part of the property of the deceased may be found. According to the learned counsel, Bhagwant Rai Sharma died in district Jind while serving in this very district and the property in respect of which the succession certificate is claimed, is also in district Jind. In the circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that it is the Court at Jind which had the exclusive jurisdiction to consider and decide the question as to the grant of succession certificate. Learned counsel further pointed out that the deceased had no property in respect of which succession certificate claimed, in district Sangrur nor did he reside at the time of his death in district Sangrur and, therefore, the Court at Sangrur had no jurisdiction to grant the succession certificate and the succession certificate granted by the Court at Sangrur is wholly without jurisdiction.