R. P. SACHDEVA v. STATE OF DELHI — 1985 DIGILAW 102 (DEL)

D. P. WADHWA ( 1 ) THIS petition though registered as a probate case is in fact tor grant of a succession certificate in respect of the movables of late Shri R. P. Sachdeva. It has been filed under Ss. 370/372 of the Succession Act, 1925 (for short the Act ) falling under Part X of the Act. Such a petition for grant of succession certificate can be filed in the Court of the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the deceased ordinarily resided, as is provided under S. 371 of the Act. "district Judge" under S. 2 (bb) of the Act means the Judge of a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. ( 2 ) THE question that I have to consider is as to whether the present petition is maintainable in the Delhi High Court. It is not disputed that a petition for grant of succession certificate is not a suit. It is also not disputed that the property in respect of which succession certificate is being claimed values over Rs. 1 lac. ( 3 ) WITH reference to S. 5 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, it was submitted by Mr. P. C. Khanna, Advocate, that the Delhi High Court is a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction and would be included in the definition of the "district Judge". I do not think Mr. Khanna is correct, and I am of the opinion that the present petition is not maintainable in the Delhi High Court. ( 4 ) UNDER S. 24 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, which is applicable to Delhi, the Court of the District Judge would be the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. Under S. 5 ( 1) of the Delhi High Court Act, the Delhi High Court has all such original, appellate and other jurisdiction as was exercisable by the High Court of Punjab in the Union Territory of Delhi Then, there is sub-s. (2) of S. 5, which is as under: "notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the High Court of Delhi shall also have in respect of the said territories ordinary original Civil jurisdiction in every suit the value of which exceeds rupees one lakh. "the Delhi High Court has thus ordinary original civil jurisdiction in a suit the value of which exceeds rupees one lac. "the Delhi High Court has thus ordinary original civil jurisdiction in a suit the value of which exceeds rupees one lac. The present petition obviously does not fall under this category. Could it be said that the Delhi High Court has become the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction because the Delhi High Court has ordinary original jurisdiction in every suit the value of which exceeds a particular limit? If the provisions of S. 24 of the Punjab Courts Act and S. 5 (2) of the Delhi High Court Act are read, it is quite clear that a certain jurisdiction has been taken away from the District Court and conferred on the Delhi High Court and this jurisdiction is only in respect of suits the value of which exceeds rupees one lac. This would not, however, make the Delhi High Court a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in Delhi Reference in this respect may be made to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Bakshi Lochan Singh v. Jathadar Santokh Singh, ILR (1971) 1 Delhi 615 : (AIR 1971 Delhi 277 ). This was a suit under S. 92 of the Civil P. C which was filed in the High Court The question that was raised was that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain such a suit It was argued that a suit as authorised by S. 92 of the Code had to be filed in the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction which in Delhi was the Court of the District Judge by reason of S. 24 of the Punjab Courts Act. The Court observed as under (at p. 280): "full effect has to be given to the language employed in sub-sec. (2) of S. 5 notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force and that can be done only by saying that for purposes of S. 92 of the Civil P. C. the Court of District Judge, Delhi will be the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in every suit the value of which does not exceed fifty thousand rupees but in other suits the value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees. this High Court will be the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. this High Court will be the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. It cannot be disputed that if original jurisdiction had been completely taken away from the Court of the District Judge, Delhi, and conferred upon this High Court, then notwithstanding S. 24 of the Punjab Courts Act, this High Court will be the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction irrespective of the valuation of the suit as in the case of what are called the Presidency High Courts. Reference in this connection may be made to AIR 1955 Bom 55 in re: Fazlehussein Haiderbhoy Buxamusa v. Yusufally Adamji. where it has been held that the Bombay High Court in the city of Bombay is the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. The original jurisdiction of this High Court is in every suit the value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees and, therefore, this High Court is the principal Court of original civil jurisdiction in every such suit. A part of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the Court of the District Judge Delhi has been conferred upon this High Court and, therefore with respect to such part, this High Court will be the principal Court of ordinary original civil jurisdiction notwithstanding S. 24 of the Punjab Courts Act. We, therefore, agree with the learned single Judge that for the purpose of this suit the value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, this High Court is the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction as contemplated by S. 92 of the Civil P. C. " ( 5 ) THUS, it was held that the High Court was a principal Court of original civil jurisdiction limited to try every such suit the value of which exceeds rupees fifty thousand (now it is rupees one lac after the amendment ). Reference may also be made to another decision of this Court in Mrs. Mary A. Trinidade v. Vincent Trinidade, 1976 Rajdhani LR 112. This case dealt with the grant of probate. The contention raised there was that after the coming into force of the Delhi High Court Act, District Judge ceased to be the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction with respect to any suit the value of which exceeded rupees fifty thousand and that the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction for matters the value of which exceeded rupees fifty thousand would be the High Court. In that case the value of the subject matter for grant of probate being admittedly more than rupees one lac, it was submitted that only High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition. This contention was repelled by H. L. Anand, J. , and the learned Judge observed as under : "it appears to me that this contention of the appellants is not sustainable. It is no doubt true that sub sec. (2) of S. 5 of the Delhi (High) Court Act, 1966 confers the High Court of Delhi ordinary original civil jurisdiction in every suit the value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees and, therefore, to that extent after coming into force of the aforesaid Act as amended, this Court has become the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, as held by this Court in the case of Bakshi Lochan Singh(supra), but the contention that by virtue of the aforesaid provision this Court has become the principal Court of original civil jurisdiction with respect 10 all matters of the said value including matter in which the testamentary and intestate jurisdiction is invoked, so as to divest the District Judge of the jurisdiction to deal with such matters, ignores the limited purpose for which sub-sec. (2) confers the ordinary original civil jurisdiction and impiiedly ousts the corresponding jurisdiction of the District Judge. A bare reading of sub-sec. (2) of S. 5 leaves no manner of doubt that the ordinary original civil jurisdiction has relation to every suit (emphasis (hereinto ) supplied ). This obviously leaves jurisdiction other than that exercisable in a suit such as testamentary and intestate jurisdiction as indeed other jurisdiction, unaffected. " ( 6 ) IT may also be noted that S. 300 of the Act provides that the High Court shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the District Judge in respect of grant of probate and letters of administration falling in Part IX of the Act. ( 7 ) REFERENCE was then made by Mr. Khanna to two decisions, one of the Bombay High Court and the other of the Madras High Court The Bombay decision is in Fazlehussein v. Yusufally, AIR 1955 Bom 55. ( 7 ) REFERENCE was then made by Mr. Khanna to two decisions, one of the Bombay High Court and the other of the Madras High Court The Bombay decision is in Fazlehussein v. Yusufally, AIR 1955 Bom 55. This was also a suit under S. 92 of the Civil P. C With reference to this judgment, the Division Bench of this Court in Bakshi Lochan Singh s case, (AIR 1971 Delhi 277) (supra) observed that it was held in that case that the Bombay High Court in the city of Bombay was the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. It may be noted that there is no clause in the Letters Patent of the Lahore High Court expressly conferring any powers of ordinary original civil jurisdiction such as occur in the Letters Patent of the High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras in which ordinary original civil jurisdiction is conferred on those Courts regarding the areas of the cities in which they are situated. Reference to the decisions of the Bombay High Court and the Madras High Court may not therefore be quite relevant. In Krishnammal v. Lakshmi Ammal AIR 1951 Mad 535 , the Court held that the term "district Judge" in S. 371 of the Act would include High Court acting in its original civil jurisdiction by virtue of S. 2 (bb) of the Act. It was, therefore, held that the High Court had jurisdiction to issue succession certificate. Under Cl. 12 of the Letters Patent constituting Madras High Court, the High Court of Madras would be the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the city of Madras. The aforesaid judgment of the Madras High Court would not, therefore, be relevant to the case before me. ( 8 ) THE jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court is same as exercised by the High Court of Punjab in Delhi before the constitution of the Delhi High Court except as provided in S. 5 (2) of the Delhi High Court Act. The High Court of Punjab under the High Courts (Punjab) Orders, 1947 has the same jurisdiction as exercised by the High Court at Lahore. There is no clause in the Letters Patent of the Lahore High Court similar to CL 12 of the Letters Patent of the Calcutta, Madras and Bombay High Courts. The High Court of Punjab under the High Courts (Punjab) Orders, 1947 has the same jurisdiction as exercised by the High Court at Lahore. There is no clause in the Letters Patent of the Lahore High Court similar to CL 12 of the Letters Patent of the Calcutta, Madras and Bombay High Courts. ( 9 ) I had the occasion to examine a somewhat similar provision with reference to the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 in G. P. No. 26 of 1984 (Mr. James Francis Dillon v. Holy Cross Social Service Centre), decided on l7-1-1985 ). Under S. 4 (4) of this Act "district Court" has the meaning assigned to that expression in the Civil P. C. and includes a High Court in the exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction. Relying on a Division Bench decision of the Punjab High Court in Sathir Singh v. Rajbir Singh, AIR 1954 Punj 274, I had held that the Delhi High Court had no jurisdiction to try a petition under Ss. 7 and 26 of the Guardians and Wards Act. ( 10 ) I would, therefore, hold that this Court has no jurisdiction to grant succession certificate tailing under Part X of the Succession Act, 1925. The present petition is therefore, returned to the petitioner for being presented in the Court of competent jurisdiction.