SANT RAM AND ANR. Vs. BOLA DEVI AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition filed by Sant Ram and Hari Ram against an order consigning to the record room an application filed under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act for a succession certificate regarding the estate of Shrimati Babbo Devi deceased.

(2.) IT seems that the deceased lady inherited certain property at Amritsar under a will executed more than 30 years ago according to the terms of which on her death the property was to be managed by the Petitioners. The application was opposed by the widow and daughter of a brother of the deceased who claimed to be the heirs. After the parties' evidence had been recorded the learned Subordinate Judge found that complicated questions of inheritance and succession were involved in the case which he considered the parties ought to get decided in a regular suit rather than in summary proceedings under the Succession Act and he ordered the record to be consigned to the record room for the present without any decision on the merits with the observation that, if so advised, the Petitioners could approach the Court for a revival of the proceedings for the grant of the succession certificate. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners has contended that this order was without jurisdiction and that the Court was bound to give a definite decision either in favour of the Petitioners or dismissing their application. The relevant provisions of Section 373 of the Act which deal with the procedure on an application under Section 372 read:

(3.) In support of his contention the learned Counsel relied on the decisions in Basanta Lal v. Parbati Koer, I.L.R. 31 Cal. 133, and Firm Patnam Lakshminarayana Chetti v. Grandhe Seshamma and Ors. : A.I.R. 1942 Mad. 709 (1), in both of which the view has been taken that the Court is bound to give a decision in favour of one party or the other. The former case was under the earlier Succession Act, VI, of 1889, in which the words of the relevant provisions were the same, and the latter under the present Act. There is, however, no reasoning in either of the judgments. In the Calcutta case the matter is dealt with as follows: