Judgment Sailendra Nath Sarkar, (hereinafter referred to as the said deceased) a Hindu governed by Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law of Indian domicile and an inhabitant of Ramkrishnapur, Howrah outside the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court but within the testamentary jurisdiction of the District Court, Howrah died on 30th December, 1982 leaving a will and testament dated 18th day if November, 1981. The said deceased died leaving his five sons, his widow, Smt. Durgarani Sarkar and one daughter Sm. Priti Mitra. By and under the said deceased appointed his two sons, namely, Sachidulal Sarkar and Nirode Baran Sarkar as Joint Exectors and Trustees. The said deceased left properties all within the jurisdiction of the Court of the District Judge Howrah. 2. The petitioners, Sachidulal Sarkar and Nirode Baran Sarkar have made an application to this Hon'ble Court for grant of a probate of the said will. A question has arisen as to whether after amendment of the City Civil Court Act 1953 by the City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 1980 this Court has jurisdiction to grant probate of the said will. In connection with the said question a broader question has arisen in this case as to how far the jurisdiction of the High Court to grant probate and letters of administration under Indian Succession Act, 1925 as also under clause 34 of the Letters Patent, 1865 has been affected in view of the amendment of the City Civil Court Act, 1953 by the City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 1980. 3. Submissions were made before me by the learned Counsel appearing all behalf of the petitioners and the State of West Bengal respectively. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the City Civil Court Act, 1953 a, amended by the City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 1980 is, restricted in its application within the territorial jurisdiction of the City Civil Court which under S. 2(3) is City of Calcutta and the same includes the area comprised within the local limits for the time being of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court. It is submitted that if The place of abode at the time of death or the assets left by the deceased are outside the territorial jurisdiction of the City Civil Court then the amendment made in the City Civil Court Act cannot affect the jurisdiction of the District Judges of other courts who have concurrent jurisdiction with the High Court at Calcutta it is further submitted that in such cases the High Court also retains jurisdiction under clause 34 of the Letters Patent 1865 unless it can be shown that there is a specific negation of such power and jurisdiction of the High Court by any other special statute it has also been submitted that even after the amendment of the City Civil Court Act as aforesaid the High Court retains its testamentary jurisdiction in all cases except where the testator dies having a place of abode within that territorial jurisdiction of the City Civil Court Act and also has left the assets within the jurisdiction of that court valued less then Rs.1 lakh. 5. On behalf of the petitioners reference was made to Ss. 264, 266, 270, 271, 273, 298 and 300 of the Indian Succession Act 1925 for the purpose of showing that the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court when the deceased dies leaving assets within the jurisdiction of the District Court and that after the probate proceeding is contested it becomes a suit and Court Fees Act is attracted for payment of ad valorem duty. It has been Submitted that when a probate proceeding is contested and marked as contentious cause it becomes a suit under the provisions of S. 295 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 as also under Schedule II item 1(g) proviso of the west Bengal Court Fees Act and Court fees are payable according to the provisions of the said Act. Further submissions on behalf of the petitioners was that after amendment of S. 5 of the City Civil Court Act 1953 by the City Civil (Amendment) Act, 1980 the High Court has lost its jurisdiction only in cases where the deceased dies within the territorial jurisdiction of the City Civil Court leaving assets of the value upto Rs.1 lakh. Further submissions on behalf of the petitioners was that after amendment of S. 5 of the City Civil Court Act 1953 by the City Civil (Amendment) Act, 1980 the High Court has lost its jurisdiction only in cases where the deceased dies within the territorial jurisdiction of the City Civil Court leaving assets of the value upto Rs.1 lakh. It has been further submitted that S. 5(3) of City Civil Court Act deals only with proceedings and not suits and the proceeding is defined in S. 2(5) which includes any proceeding arising out of a suit of a civil nature (not being a proceeding on appeal, reference, revision or any application to the High Court) and any proceeding whatsoever of a civil nature in the exercise of original jurisdiction not arising out of a suit. Therefore, all proceedings arising in a suit or original application are tribal by the City Civil Court provided the Judges of the City Civil Court have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain try and determine the same. It is further submitted that a soon as a probate proceeding is contested and is marked as contentious cause it becomes a suit under the provisions of S. 295 of the Indian Succession Act as also under schedule 2 item 1(g) proviso of the West Bengal Court Fees Act. Further, in cases where valuation of such suit exceeds rupees one lakh the City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try such suit. 6. It is further submitted that deletion of S. 300 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 by the City Civil Court (Amendment) Act 1980 is effective only with regard to the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court and it does not affect the High Court's concurrent jurisdiction in the cases coming under other District Courts of West Bengal. The deletion of S. 300 of the Indian Succession Act by the City Civil Court (Amendment) Act is not for all purposes from the statute book in an application under the said Indian Succession Act in the Districts of West Bengal it cannot be contended that S. 300 stands deleted Accordingly, S.300 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 remain in the statute in its application to the other districts of West Bengal and therefore High Court retains its concurrent jurisdiction with other District Courts of West Bengal. 7. 7. It has been further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that under clause 34 of the Letters Patent 1865 High Court is empowered to issue grant throughout India provided there is no other law curtailing the jurisdiction of the High Court. In the present case, even if S. 300 is deleted and if it is assumed that such deletion is effective throughout West Bengal, still the High Court retains its jurisdiction under clause 34 of the Letters Patent to issue grant effectively throughout India as the High Court is the only Court in the State which is capable of granting any probate which will be defective throughout the Union of India while the assets of the deceased are beyond Rs.10,000/- in other States Further, where the assets of the deceased are more than Rs.1 lakh. then the City Civil Court loses its jurisdiction to issue any grant whether contested or uncontested and the High Court becomes the only Court which can issue the grant in a case where the testator dies having place of abode outside the territorial jurisdiction of the City Civil Court and having properties outside the jurisdiction of that Court, then the High Court has the power to grant probate or letters of administration in that case City Civil Court cannot have any jurisdiction over the matter and clause 34 is directly attracted to the High Court to issue grant in such cases. 8. It has been further submitted that unless there is an express provision in a statute or necessary intendment of the statute is to affect the jurisdiction of a court, the jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be affected. The jurisdiction of the Court cannot be affected by implication and further, exclusion of the jurisdiction is not to be readily inferred. There is a presumption against exclusion of jurisdiction of civil court by statute. Reference was made to the case of Management, Shahdra Delhi Saharanpur Light Railway Co. Ltd. v. S.S. Railway Worker's Union AIR 1969 SC 513 ; Dulabhai v. State of M.P., AIR 1969 SC 78 and Union of India v. Ganpath Ray Sagarmull and anr. AIR 1983 Calcutta 14. Counsel has further submitted that in the present case the testamentary jurisdiction of the High Court at Calcutta conferred by clause 34 of the Letters Patent has not been touched. AIR 1983 Calcutta 14. Counsel has further submitted that in the present case the testamentary jurisdiction of the High Court at Calcutta conferred by clause 34 of the Letters Patent has not been touched. The only jurisdiction which has been sought to be curtailed by the amending Act is limited to the original jurisdiction of the High Court which is same as the territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Court within which the Judges of the City Civil Court are entitled to exercise jurisdiction By the amending Act, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Judges of the Civil Court has been raised to Rs.1 lakh and cases under certain Acts have been made exclusively triable by the City Civil Court. It cannot be contended that by the amending Act the entire jurisdiction of the High Court exercisable under the Indian Succession Act has been conferred on the City Civil Court. It is further submitted that only restricted meaning should be given to the City Civil Court Act by which Judges of the City Civil Court will be entitled to exercise jurisdiction as conferred upon them by Ss. 3, 4 and 5 of the City Civil Court Act, 1953 as amended by the amending Act. 9. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of West Bengal has submitted that by the amendment of City Civil Court Act entire jurisdiction in respect of the probate proceeding under S. 300 of Succession Act has been taken away. It is further submitted that S. 5, sub-s. 2 of the City Civil Court Act indicates that sub-s. 2 is subject to the provisions of sub-S. 3 and 4. Under sub-s. 3 the City Civil Court has jurisdiction in respect of and the High Court shall not have jurisdiction to try any proceedings, inter alia under the Indian Succession Act 1925 and under sub-s. 3 no restriction has been put on the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court whereas in sub-s. 2 pecuniary limit of Rs.1 lakh has been imposed in case of suits and proceedings of civil nature triable by the City Civil Court Hence under sub-s. (3) of S. 5 of the City Civil Court has retained the jurisdiction on all probate proceedings irrespective of value provided. It has the territorial jurisdiction. 10. It has the territorial jurisdiction. 10. It has been further submitted that the use of the word 'in proceeding' clearly indicates that this "proceeding" includes any initiation of legal proceeding including that of suit. Therefore, by amendment of the City Civil Court Act probate proceeding relating to any property left within the jurisdiction of City Civil Court irrespective of value has been transferred under the jurisdiction of City Civil Court from the Original Side of the High Court. 11. It is also submitted that the preamble of the amendment Act and also that of the City Civil Court Act of 1953 clearly indicate the intention behind such legislation and also the purpose of establishment of City Civil Court. In the circumstances by amendment the legislature intended to transfer all probate proceedings under S. 300 of the Indian Succession Act to the City Civil Court irrespective of the value of the property within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court which was originally within the territorial jurisdiction to the Original Side of the Calcutta High Court. 12. It is submitted that under S. 273 proviso, (b) probates and letters of administration issued by a District Judge when the deceased at the time of his death had a fixed place of abode situate within the jurisdiction of such Judge and such Judge certifies that the value of property and estate affected beyond the limits of the state does not exceed ten thousand rupees shall unless otherwise directed by the grant shall have effect throughout the other States. In this connection reference was made to the case of T.J. George v. Mr. Lucy Kochuvareed AIR 1963 Kerala 188 where the Division Bench of Kerala High Court following Privy Council case held that the District Court has the power to issue the letters of administration and the certificate even in respect of the property left outside the territorial jurisdiction of the State and valued over Rs.10,000/-. 13. It is further submitted that it cannot be said that by implication the jurisdiction of a Court can be curtailed in absence of express statutory provision. The amendment of the City Civil Court is in respect of the jurisdiction of City Civil Court and as such by implication this should not curtail the jurisdiction of other district courts so far as the probate proceedings are concerned. The amendment of the City Civil Court is in respect of the jurisdiction of City Civil Court and as such by implication this should not curtail the jurisdiction of other district courts so far as the probate proceedings are concerned. According to the learned Counsel for the State Clause 34 of Letters Patent and S. 273 of the Succession Act clearly give concurrent jurisdiction to the High Court with the District Court where the estate left by the testator is otherwise qualified to be administered by District Court concurrently with the Original Side of High Court. 14. According to Counsel the omission of the word 'suit' in S. 5 sub-s. 3 of the City Civil Court Act is deliberate in view of the fact that the proceeding includes a suit and specially in view of the fact that under the Indian Succession Act any legal action or steps in a legal action initiated by application which includes in the word 'proceedings'. It is further submitted that after filing of the cannot and the affidavit in support of the said caveat proceeding is regarded as contentious cause and it will be treated as if it is a suit and as such this legal proceeding is not a suit at all section 295 of the Indian Succession Act clearly indicates that 'proceeding' shall take, as nearly is may be the form of a regular suit according to the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in which the petitioner for probate or letters of administration, as the case may be, shall be the plaintiff and the person who has appeared to oppose the grant shall be the defendant. In this connection reference was made to the cases of Bohra Kanhaiya Lall & Ors. v. Gendo, AIR 1928 Allahabad 51 and Gounbala Sadhukhan v. Jibankrishna Sadhukhan & Ors., 77 CWN 676. Therefore, proceedings for probate is not a suit but under certain circumstances and upon fulfillment of certain conditions it is treated as or deemed to be a suit. 15. v. Gendo, AIR 1928 Allahabad 51 and Gounbala Sadhukhan v. Jibankrishna Sadhukhan & Ors., 77 CWN 676. Therefore, proceedings for probate is not a suit but under certain circumstances and upon fulfillment of certain conditions it is treated as or deemed to be a suit. 15. According to counsel the effect of the City Civil Court (Amendment) Act 1980 is that when the testator dies having his place of abode within the territorial jurisdiction of the City Civil Court and when the testator dies leaving assets within the territorial jurisdiction of City Civil Court then the City Civil Court has only jurisdiction to try and determine the probate proceeding irrespective of the value of the assets and the High Court has no jurisdiction to try such probate proceedings. 16. The question that arises for consideration is to what extent High Court's power and jurisdiction to grant probate and letters of administration has been affected by the City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 1980. Before dealing with this question the provisions of the Acts having a bearing on the question may be referred to. 17. Under S. 2(bb) of the Indian Succession Act District Judge means the Judge of a principal civil court of original jurisdiction. 18. Section 266 of the Indian Succession Act provides that the District Judge shall have jurisdiction in granting and revoking probates and letter of administration in all cases within his district. 19. Section 266 of the Indian Succession Act provides that the District Judge shall have the lib powers and authority in relation to the granting of probate and letters of administration, and all matters connected therewith, as are by law vested in him in relation to any civil suit or proceeding pending in his Court. 20. Section 270 of the Indian Succession Act provides that probate of the will or letters of administration to the estate of a deceased person may be granted by a District Judge under the seal of his Court if it appears by a petition, verified as hereinafter provided, of the person applying for the same that the testator or intestate, as the case may be, at the time of his decease had a fixed place of abode, or any property, moveable or immovable, within the jurisdiction of the Judge. 21. 21. Section 273 of the Indian Succession Act provide s for disposal of application made to Judge of district in which the deceased had no place of abode. 22. Section 273 of the Indian Succession Act provides about conclusiveness of probate and letters of administration. Proviso to the said section provides that probates and letters of administration granted: "(a) by a High Court or (omitted by the Second Schedule of the City Civil Court (Amendment) Act 1980) (b) by a District Judge, whore the deceased at the time of his death had a fixed place of abode situate within the jurisdiction of such Judge and such Judge certifies that the values of the property and estate affected beyond the limited of the State does not exceed ton thousand rupees, shall unless otherwise directed by the grant, have like effect throughout the other States" 23. Section 295 of the Succession Act provides as follows:- "In any case before the District Judge in which there is contention, the proceeding shall take, as needy as may be, the form of a regular suit, according to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in which the petitioner for probate or letters of administration, as the case may be, shall be the plaintiff and the person who has appeared to oppose the grant shall be the defendant". 24. Section 300 of the Indian Succession Act provides as follows:- "The High Court shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the District Judge in the exercise of all the powers hereby conferred upon the District Judge" (Omitted by the Second Schedule of the City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 1980) 25. Under S. 2(3) of the City Civil Court Act 'City of Calcutta' means the area comprised within the local limits for the time being of the ordinary original jurisdiction of the High Court. 26. Under S. 2(5) "proceedings" includes any proceeding arising out of suit of a civil nature (not being proceeding on appeal, reference, revision or any application to the High Court) and any other proceeding whatsoever of a civil natural in the exercise of original Jurisdiction not arising out of a suit. 27. 26. Under S. 2(5) "proceedings" includes any proceeding arising out of suit of a civil nature (not being proceeding on appeal, reference, revision or any application to the High Court) and any other proceeding whatsoever of a civil natural in the exercise of original Jurisdiction not arising out of a suit. 27. Section 5 of the City Civil Court Act, 1953 as amended by S. 2 of the City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 1980 provides as follows:- "(1) The local limits of the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court shall be the City of Calcutta. (2) Subject to the provisions of sub-s. (3) and (4), the City Civil Court shall have jurisdiction and the High Court shall not have jurisdiction to try suits and proceedings of a Civil nature, not exceeding rupees one lakh in value. (3) The City Civil Court shall have jurisdiction and the High Court shall not have jurisdiction to try any proceeding under- (i) the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890) (ii) the Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 (3 of 1909) (iii) the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912 (4 of 1912) (iv) the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925) (4) The City Civil Court shall not have jurisdiction to try suits or any proceedings of the descript ion specified in the First Schedule. (5) All suits and proceedings which are not triable by the City Civil Court shall continue to be triable by the High Court or the Small Cause Court or any other Court, tribunal or authority, as the case may, as hereto-before". 28. In the Second Schedule substituted by the City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 1980 following proviso has been added to clause (bb) of S. 2 of the Indian Succession Act: “Provided that as respect the area comprised within the local limits for the time being of the ordinary civil jurisdiction of he High Court at Calcutta reference to District Judge in this act shall be construed as reference to the City Civil Court established under the City Civil Court Act, 1953 (West Bengal Act XXX of 1953).” 29. By the said Schedule S. 300 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 has been omitted. 30. By the said Schedule S. 300 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 has been omitted. 30. In view of amended S. 5 of the City Civil Court Act in case where the deceased dies leaving a fixed place of abode and has left properties within the jurisdiction of City Civil Court i.e. City of Calcutta, which means the area comprised within the local limits for the time being of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court, only the City Civil Court has the jurisdiction to grant probate or letters of administration. It is contended by the petitioners that the pecuniary jurisdiction of City Civil Court in such cases is only upto rupees one lakh and beyond that limit the jurisdiction of the High Court has not been affected. I am unable to accept such contention Section 5(2) of the City Civil Court Act, 1953 as amended, which specifies the pecuniary limit upto rupees one 21 lakh, is subject to sub-s. (3) and (4) of S. 5. By amended S. 5(3) exclusive jurisdiction has been given to the City Civil Court to try any proceeding inter alia, under Indian Succession Act, 1925 arising within the territorial jurisdiction or City Civil Court with regard to proceeding under various Acts mentioned in sub-s. (3) which includes Indian Succession Act the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court is not limited because sub-s (2) or S. 5 is subject to the provisions of sub-s. (3) and (4) of that section. Hence in my view, High Court's jurisdiction and power to try proceeding in respect of cases under Indian Succession Act arising exclusively within the territorial jurisdiction of the City Civil Court has been completely taken away by the City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 1980 and conferred on the City Civil Court. The intention of the legislature is clear that such proceeding will be tried by the City Civil Court exclusively. 31. The next question is what is the effect of omission of S. 300 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 by the Second Schedule of the City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 1980. By S. 300 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 High Court has been conferred concurrent jurisdiction with the District Judge in the exercise of all the powers conferred upon the District Judge by the Act. By S. 300 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 High Court has been conferred concurrent jurisdiction with the District Judge in the exercise of all the powers conferred upon the District Judge by the Act. Since S. 300 is omitted without any qualification it cannot be said that omission of S. 300 is limited only to the cases triable by the City Civil Court. In my view, omission of S. 300 has deprived of the High Court's concurrent jurisdiction not only in respect of the matters triable by the City Civil Court but in respect of jurisdiction exercisable under the Indian Succession Act by the District Judges throughout the State of West Bengal. The omission of S. 300 is not subject to any qualification or limitation but is absolute. 32. Excepting the provisions of the Indian Succession Act which are omitted by tile City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 1980 if any power or jurisdiction which has been conferred upon the High Court by any provision of the Indian Succession Act that power or jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court in cases in respect whereof the City Civil Court has no exclusive jurisdiction. 33. I am also unable to accept tile petitioner's submission as stated earlier that S. 5(3) of the City Civil Court Act uses the expression 'proceeding' and not suit and therefore when the probate proceeding is contested and is marked as contentious cause it becomes a suit under the provisions of S. 295 of the Indian Succession Act 1925 as also under Schedule 2 item 1(g) proviso of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970 and if the valuation is over one lakh City Civil Court's jurisdiction is ousted. 34. Under S. 295 of the Indian Succession Act in any case if there is contention it does not become a suit. In such a case the proceeding shall take, as nearly as may be, the form of a regular suit according to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in which the petitioner for probate or letters of administration, as the case may be, shall be the plaintiff and the person who hull appeared to oppose the grant shall be the defendant. Hence when an application for grant of probate or letters of administration is opposed, the proceeding does not become a suit but it is treated as a suit. Hence when an application for grant of probate or letters of administration is opposed, the proceeding does not become a suit but it is treated as a suit. The exercise of power by the City Civil Court for grant of probate or letters of administration in by an application in exorcise of its original jurisdiction not arising out of a suit and hence it is a proceeding as defined by S. 2(5) of the City Civil Court Act, 1953. In this connection a reference may be made to Rule 28 of Chapter XXXV of the Original Side Rules of the Calcutta High Court. The said Rule provides that of a Judge upon application by summons be numbered as a suit in which the petitioner for probate or letters of administration shall be the plaintiff and the caveator shall be defendant, the petition for probate or letters of administration being registered as and deemed a plaint filed against the caveator and the affidavit filed by the caveator being treated as his written statement in the suit. 35. In the case of Bohra Kanhaiya Lal v. Gando, AIR 1923 Allahabad 51 the High Court referring to S. 83 of the Probate and Administration Act of 1881 which was more or less similar to S. 295 of the Indian Succession Act, observed that: "Section 83 of the Act provides that in any case in which there is contention, the proceeding shall take, as nearly, as may be, the form of a suit, according to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, in which the petitioner for probate shall be plaintiff, and the person who may have appeared as aforesaid to oppose the grant shall be the defendant. In our opinion, this section, instead of helping the respondent, is really against him, for it clearly implies that the proceeding is not itself a suit but is to take, as nearly as may be the form of a suit. If the proceeding were itself a suit, there would be no necessary that it should take the form of a suit when there is a contention." 36. In the aforesaid view of the matter the use of the word "proceeding" in S. 5(3) of the City Civil Court Act as amended does not in any way affect that exercise of power and jurisdiction of the City Civil Court under Indian Succession Act, 1925. 37. In the aforesaid view of the matter the use of the word "proceeding" in S. 5(3) of the City Civil Court Act as amended does not in any way affect that exercise of power and jurisdiction of the City Civil Court under Indian Succession Act, 1925. 37. Next it is to be considered to what extent the jurisdiction of the High Court in testamentary and intestate matters conferred by Clause 34 of the Latten Patent, 1865 has been affected by the City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 1980. In the case of Maniklal Shah v. Hiralal Shah, 54 CWN 225 it has been held that under clause 34 of the Letters Patent, 1865 the Court's jurisdiction in testamentary matter is coextensive within the limits of the Province (new State of West Bengal). It, therefore, follows that where the deceased has died having a fixed place of abode a or leaving assets within the State but outside the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of the High Court then the High Court has power and jurisdiction under clause 34 of the Letters Patent to grant probate or letters of administration as the case may be. It appears to mo that S. 5(3) of the City Civil Court Act as amended has affected the testamentary and intestate jurisdiction conferred on the High Court by clause 34 of the Letters Patent only in cases arising exclusively within the territorial jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, i.e. where the deceased has died having a fixed place of abode and leaving all the assets within the City of Calcutta as defined by S. 2(3) of the City Civil Court Act. If either accessed has died having a fixed place of abode or leaving any allot outside the City of Calcutta but within the State then the High Court shall have jurisdiction to grant probate of letters or administration as the case may be under clause 34 of the Letter Patent. In view of the amended S. 5(3) of the City Civil Court Act the High Court shall not have jurisdiction to try any proceeding under the Indian Succession Act. In view of the amended S. 5(3) of the City Civil Court Act the High Court shall not have jurisdiction to try any proceeding under the Indian Succession Act. Thus the said subsection has completely deprived the High Court of its jurisdiction to take any proceeding under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 in cases where exclusive jurisdiction has been conferred upon City Civil Court, i.e. cases arising exclusively in the City of Calcutta as defined under S. 2(3) of the City Civil Court Act, 1953. That being the position power to take proceeding by virtue of clause 34 of the letters Patent in eases coming within the exclusive jurisdiction of the City Civil Court would amount to conferring jurisdiction of the High Court by a back-door process, Omission of S. 300 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 has completely taken away High Court's concurrent power and jurisdiction under Indian Succession Act exclusively by the District Courts. This became necessary because under the proviso dated to Section 2(bb) of the Indian Succession Act in respect of the City of Calcutta a reference to District Judge would mean City Civil Court, High Court having been robbed of its jurisdiction in respect of the proceeding in testamentary and intestate matter arising exclusively within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court by the City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 1980 cannot exorcist the same by virtue of Clause 34 of the Letters Patent in the cases arising exclusively within the territorial jurisdiction of the City Civil Court. That would clearly defect the purpose of omission of S. 300 of the Indian Succession Act by a process of back door construction which I do not propose to adopt Effect of omission of S. 300 as submitted by the petitioners would amount to exercise of jurisdiction under the omitted S. 300 of the Indian Succession Act in cases arising exclusively within the jurisdiction of City Civil Court where value of the estate left by the deceased is over rupees one lake. Amended S. 5(3) of the City Civil Court Act has expressly taken away the High Court's jurisdiction under Indian Succession Act, 1925 in Cases arising exclusively within the territorial jurisdiction of City Civil Court. Amended S. 5(3) of the City Civil Court Act has expressly taken away the High Court's jurisdiction under Indian Succession Act, 1925 in Cases arising exclusively within the territorial jurisdiction of City Civil Court. From the amendment of S. 5 of the City Civil Court Act and omission of S. 300 of the Indian Succession Act the necessary intendment of, the legislature appears to be that in cases arising exclusively within the territorial jurisdiction of the City Civil Court and in respect of which City Civil Court has exclusive jurisdiction as stated hereinbefore the High Court shall not exercise any power or Surisdiction be it under Indian Succession Act or under clause 34 of the Letters Patent. The necessary effect of the above amendment and omission, in my view, is that the power and jurisdiction of the High Court in the testamentary or intestate matter under the provision of Indian Succession Act have been totally taken away and partially under clause 34 of the Letters Patent in cases arising exclusively within the territorial jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, i.e. where the deceased had his fixed place of abode and has also left all his assets within the territorial jurisdiction of the City Civil Court High Court's jurisdiction under Clause 34 of the Letters Patent in respect of cases arising outside the territorial jurisdiction of the City Civil Court has not been affected Further, omission of S. 300 of the Indian Succession Act cannot in my view, be interpreted to mean that High Court's jurisdiction exercisable under clause 34 of the Letters Patent in cases arising outside the territorial limit of the City Civil Court has been curtailed. Such interpretation would amount to deprivation of the High Courts original jurisdiction conferred by Letters Patent in matters which are not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the City Civil Court without express words or by necessary implication. The jurisdiction of a superior Court cannot be affected save and except by express provision or necessary implication of a mandatory nature of a statute. The jurisdiction of a superior Court cannot be affected save and except by express provision or necessary implication of a mandatory nature of a statute. In Craies on Statute Law (17th Edition) at page 123 it is observed that the general rule applicable to the construction of statutes is that there is not to be presumed without express words an authority to deprive the Supreme Court of a jurisdiction it had previously exercised or to extend the private jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to the inferior Courts. Further, exclusion of jurisdiction is not to be readily inferred. There is a presumption against exclusion of jurisdiction of a civil court by a statute. Very clear words will be required to oust altogether the jurisdiction f the Court in the matter of private right (Union of India v. Ganpat Roy Sagarmull, AIR 1982 Calcutta 14). 38. The object and reasons for enacting City Civil Court Act, 1953 is to relieve the Original Side of High Court of part of the large volume of civil litigation arising in Calcutta. The scope of the City Civil Court (Amendment) Act of 1980 is to be considered in the context of the objects and reasons for enacting the City Civil Court Act, 1953. Hence, in my view, the effect of the City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 1980 should be restricted to cases exclusively triable by the City Civil Court. The scope of the City Civil Court Act, 1953 as amended by the City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 1980 should not be broadened. 39. By Second Schedule a proviso has been added to clause (bb) of S. 2 of the Indian Succession Act to the effect that as respect the area comprised within the local limits for the time being of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court at Calcutta references to a District Judge in the Act shall be construed al reference to the City Civil Court. As the City Civil Court is treated as District Court in respect of the City of Calcutta, S. 300 has been omitted so that High Court cannot exercise any jurisdiction under Indian Succession Act or under Claus. 34 of the Letter Patent in respect of the cases arising within the exclusive jurisdiction of the City Civil Court which is treated as District Court for the City for Calcutta as stated hereinbefore. 34 of the Letter Patent in respect of the cases arising within the exclusive jurisdiction of the City Civil Court which is treated as District Court for the City for Calcutta as stated hereinbefore. It seems to me that inasmuch as High Court's jurisdiction and power under Indian Succession Act has been taken away by the City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 1980 S. 300 is omitted so that in the City of Calcutta as defined by S. 2(3) of the City Civil Court Act the High Court cannot exercise any power and jurisdiction concurrently with the City Civil Court which is defined to be District Court in respect of the City of Calcutta under the amended provision of the Indian Succession Act. 40. In the instant case the deceased died having a place of abode as also leaving assets within the jurisdiction of the District Judge, Howrah. In that view of the matter the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try testamentary proceeding relating to the estate of the deceased under clause 34 of the Letters Patent. 41. In the above view of the matter I hold that the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the petition for grant of probate of the will of Sailendra Nath Sarkar, deceased. Cost of this application will be paid out of the estate of the deceased. High Court's jurisdiction to entertain the petition upheld.