MT GAUHAR JEHAN BEGUM Vs. MTIMTEYAZ JEHAN BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This miscellaneous first appeal is by Mt. Gauhar Jehan Begum who was plaintiff in Title Suit No. 40/43 18/44 which was filed in the Court of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge at Patna. The plaint has been returned by the Subordinate Judge on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction. A few relevant facts may be stated here. The plaintiff is the widow of one Syed Ahmad Hussain of Asthawan in the district of Patna. She brought the present suit for recovery of her dower debt and also for the administration of her deceased husband's estate. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge treated it as an administration suit but returned the plaint as in his opinion Section 20, Civil P.C., stood In the way of the plaintiff. It is an admitted fact that most of the properties belonging to the estate of the deceased lie outside the district of Patna where the suit was filed. It would appear that only a fractitional portion of the properties Is situate in this district.

(2.) Mr. B.C. De arguing for the appellant has contended that it is Section 16, Civil P.C., which is applicable to the facts of the case and not Section 20 of the same Code. There is no dispute between the parties that an administration suit does lie in a case like this. If any authority is needed, one might refer to Mt. Amir Bi v. Abdul Rahim A.I.R. 1928 Mad. 760. The whole question in this case is whether Section 16, Civil P.C, applies. The learned advocate for the respondents contended that as it is not a suit for the recovery of immovable property, Section 16 has no application. Mr. De, on the other hand, contended that Section 16(d) is applicable. Section 16(d) reads like this: Subject to the pecuniary or other limitations prescribed by any law, suits for the determination of any other right to or interest in immovable property shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate.

(3.) One has only to refer to the relief portion of the plaint to be convinced that Clause (d) of Section 16 applies to the present case. Belief No. 2 in the plaint asks for a decree for a specified sum of money by way of dower debt. Later on, the same relief is to the effect that the Court might declare that the dower debt is a charge upon the estate of deceased Syed Ahmad Hussain. This mention of the word "charge" in Relief No. 2 brings the case within the purview of Clause (d) of Section 16, Civil P.C. In this connection a reference may also be made to a ruling reported in Shiv Ram V/s. Prahlad Rai A.I.R. 1926 Lab. 503. In this case the deceased had properties in Burma and in the district of Ludhiana in the Punjab. After her death, probate proceedings were taken in Burma and an administration suit was filed in the district of Ludhiana where also, as just stated, there was some property of the deceased. It was held that the administration suit was properly filed in Ludhiana.