MAHOMEDALLY ADAMJI MASALAVALLA Vs. ABDUL HUSSEIN ADAMJI MASALAVALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit filed for the administration of the estate of one Adamji Massalavalla. The suit was filed on October 25, 1920, by the two sons and a daughter of the deceased Adamji against his two other sons and another daughter.

(2.) On behalf of defendant No. 1 an objection was taken that as the properties of the deceased included a house situate at Kurla, the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It was contended on his behalf that it was really a suit for land within the meaning of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. But that objection was overruled and a preliminary decree was passed which contained a declaration that the Court had jurisdiction to administer the said Kurla property.

(3.) From this preliminary decree defendant No. 1 preferred an appeal to this Court: Abdul Hussein V/s. Mahomedally . In that appeal it was held that a suit for the administration of an estate was not a suit for land and that the Court had jurisdiction to proceed with the suit; but it was held that any declaration as to the Court having jurisdiction to administer the Kurla property was premature at that stage. The following observations in the judgment are pertinent:-- It is only when the reference commences before the Commissioner on the accounts being filed that, it can bo ascertained what are the contentions of the parties and whether the accounts filed together with the objections and surcharges show that there are properties either inside or outside the jurisdiction belonging to the estate. When claims to such properties are raised before the Commissioner, then it is a matter for him to decide what actions to take, and even if he is of opinion that he has jurisdiction to decide questions of title to immoveable property, it will be open to the parties to ask him to make a reference for the opinion of the Court, when the Court will be in a position to decide how the disputed questions of title should be tried.