TARA WATI Vs. DURGA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 104 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir against an order of the learned District Judge, Jammu, appointing a curator in the proceedings under the provisions of Succession (Property Protection) Act, 1977 hereinafter called the ËœActâ„¢.

(2.) THE brief facts which led to the filing of the application before the District Judge, Jammu are as follows: - Shiv Shanker and Thakur Dass were two brothers, Shiv Shanker died issueless. Thakur Dass had two daughters namely Tara Wati petitioner and Durga Devi respondent No. 1. On the death of Shiv Shankar a dispute arose regarding succession to Shiv Shanker. Tara Wati propounded a will in her favour in respect of the whole property left by Shiv Shanker whereas Durga Devi, respondent No. 1 disputed the same. An application was made by Durga Devi respondent No. 1 before the District Judge, Jammu, under Section 1 of Succession (Property Protection) Act, 1977 for determining summarily the right of either party to possession of the property. In the course of this application the District Judge, Jammu, passed the order dated 23rd November. 1973 appointing Shri Amrish Kapoor pleader as curator and directing him in terms of Section 6 of the Act to take possession of the property generally and the prepare an inventory of movable property found in the house as also to take all other steps for securing the property from misappropriation and waste by the party in possession. Against this order of the learned District Judge, Jammu, dated 23rd November, 1973 the petitioner has filed the present revision application in this Court. The Honâ„¢ble Chief Justice before whom the revision application came up for admission on 3rd December, 1973 passed an order staying the operation of the order of the District Judge and further directed the Deputy Registrar of this Court to proceed to the spot accompanied by the curator Amrish Kapoor and prepare a detailed inventory of the movable property. The Honâ„¢ble Chief Justice further directed that the status quo ante may be restored by breaking open the locks which were put by the curator. Consequent upon the passing of the order the petitioner was relegated to the position which she held on the date of the order of the District Judge was passed.

(3.) MR . Gupta appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted before me that in fact the Succession (Property Protection) Act, 1977, had no application to the facts of the present case.