Judgment V.K. Bali, J.-Sudarshan Bhatia, born and brought up in the State of Rajasthan, but stated to be a Canadian citizen, died on 21.04.1989 in Germany leaving behind considerable movable and immovable properties. Poonam Bhatia his wife and Smita Bhatia, minor daughter, said to have been born out of the wed-lock of Sudershan Bhatia and Poona Bhatia, successfully sought succession certificate with regard to the movable properties of deceased Sudershan Bhatia, details whereof have been given in the application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act itself as the same was allowed vide orders dated 012.1999 passed by the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Whereas Surendra Bhatia brother of Sudershan Bhatia resisted grant of succession certificate to Poonam Bhatia and her daughter Smita on the basis of Will dated 17.04.1989 (Exhibit-A/1) said to have been executed by Sudershan Bhatia, his sister resisted the same on the ground that movable properties owned by Sudershan Bhatia were made from immovable properties owned by her father, and the said movable properties thus being ancestral, she had a share in the same. The two broad defences projected by Surendra Bhatia and his sister, not only fizzled out before the learned Single Judge but the same also cut no ice in the appeals preferred by them as the same came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide orders dated 26.04.2001. It is against these two orders dated 012.1999 and 26.04.2001 that the present appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 has been filed. 2. Whereas Mr. A.K. Bhandari, representing Surendra Bhatia (appellant in Appeal No. 104/2001) has primarily challenged the impugned Judgment by reiterating the contentions raised before the learned District Judge and the Single Judge with regard to the validity of the Will dated 17.04.1989 (Exhibit-A/1), Mrs. Naina Saraf was at pains to explain that the property, subject matter of succession certificate, was ancestral property and she being a coparcener, would succeed to 1/4th of even of the movable properties owned by Sudershan Bhatia and in the manner aforesaid, even if no effect is to be given to the Will, she would be a natural successor to the estate of Sudershan Bhatia, be it movable or immovable properties. 3. Mr. 3. Mr. R.P. Garg, per contra, appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently contends that not only the Will propounded by Surendra Bhatia is an outright act of concoction and forgery, Swarn Anand has absolutely no right whatsoever to succeed to the estate of her brother, and also contends that the duo of appellant brother and sister has embroilled the respondents in unsavoury, unethical and frivolous litigation spread over a period of sixteen years on made up and trumped up pleadings and evidence. The questions as posed by learned Counsel appearing for the parties, as mentioned above, necessarily need a mention of the relevant facts which reveal that Poonam Bhatia widow of Sudershan Bhatia in her application that was filed under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act inter alia pleaded that Sudershan Bhatia, her husband, had properties at Jaipur and Delhi. He died on 21.04.1989 in Germany. She alongwith her daughter was the sole heir to claim estate of the deceased. This application was resisted by the appellant who as mentioned above, are brother and sister of deceased Sudershan Bhatia. Surendra Bhatia propounded a Will dated 17.04.1989 (Exhibit-A/1) said to have been executed by his brother Sudershan Bhatia. He further stated that relations between his deceased brother and Poonam Bhatia were strained and he never wanted to give any property to her. The Will propounded by Surendra Bhatia, it was claimed, was executed by the deceased Sudershan Bhatia in a hospital at Frankfurt in Germany. 4. On the respective pleadings of the parties, learned District Judge framed following four issues:- .(i) Whether deceased executed any Will and because of Will applicants are not entitled for succession certificate; .(ii) Whether Will is legally valid and effective; (iii) Whether probate is necessary; (iv) Whether Will was to be attested according to German Law or it is otherwise also illegal. 5. Whereas learned trial Judge returned findings on Issues No. 1 and 2 in favour of the respondent-plaintiffs, findings on remaining issues were returned against the defendant-appellants and the Will was held not to have been validly executed. The same was also held to be surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The application for grant of succession certificate in view of the findings as mentioned above, was allowed vide Judgment dated 012.1999, in respect of properties referred to in Schedule-A and B annexed to the application. The same was also held to be surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The application for grant of succession certificate in view of the findings as mentioned above, was allowed vide Judgment dated 012.1999, in respect of properties referred to in Schedule-A and B annexed to the application. Aggrieved against order passed by the learned District Judge appeals came to be filed before the learned Single Judge with the result as already indicated above. 6. Mr. A.K. Bhandari, learned Counsel representing the appellant Surendra Bhatia, at very outset, contends that Sudershan Bhatia was a Canadian citizen and as per the evidence that has come on records, he was for major part residing in Germany itself . The very application filed for grant of succession certificate in view of provisions contained in Section 5(2) of the Act was not maintainable before the learned District Judge, Jaipur City. Even though this contention was not raised either before the learned District Judge or the Single Judge, Mr. Bhandari, contends that this being a jurisdictional question going to the root of the case could be taken up at any stage and the mere fact that this argument was not raised earlier, would not put any embargo on the right of the appellant to rake up such points which may touch the very jurisdiction of the Court to entertain petition under Section 372 of the Act. 7. Mr. R.P. Garg representing the respondents, on the other hand, vehemently contends that the question raised by Mr. Bhandari is a mixed question of law and fact and should not be permitted to be raised for the first time in second appeal. He further contends that the point with regard to competence of the District Judge to entertain and try petition under Section 372 of the Act should not be permitted to be raised for the added reason that this point has been raised after sixteen years of marathon litigation and at this stage and time, if the widow and minor daughter of Sudershan Bhatia have to be shown an alternative forum to vindicate their stand, then they shall be put to such tremendous loss which cannot be compensated by any means whatsoever. He also joins issue with Mr. Bhandari with regard to competence of the District Judge to entertain and try petition under Section 372 of the Act. 8. He also joins issue with Mr. Bhandari with regard to competence of the District Judge to entertain and try petition under Section 372 of the Act. 8. Having examined the rival contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties as noted above, we are of the view that the appellants should not be permitted to raise the point with regard to competence of the District Judge to try petition under Section 372 of the Act at this stage. We are also of the view that the question posed by Mr. Bhandari is a mixed question of law and fact and further that even if this question is permitted to be raised, the same, in the context and facts and circumstances of the case, would have no merit whatsoever. 9. The appellants, when served with the notice of petition under Section 372 of the Act submitted to the jurisdiction of the learned District Judge, filed written statement, claimed issues and went for trial. For nine long years, when the matter remained pending before the learned District Judge, no objection with regard to the jurisdiction of that Court to entertain petition under Section 372 of the Act, was ever raised. No issue was claimed either by the appellants. Learned District Judge allowed the petition, as mentioned above, on 012.1999. Thereafter, the matter remained pending either before the learned Single Judge or before the Division Bench for a period of six years and it is only at the time of arguments that this point has been raised. In the process, as mentioned above, a period of sixteen years has gone by. If Poonam Bhatia and her minor daughter are relegated to vindicate their stand in an alternative forum at this stage, we accept the contention of the learned Counsel representing them that they cannot be compensated by any means; whatsoever. The widow and daughter of Sudershan Bhatia for all these sixteen years have been deprived of even the movable properties left by Sudershan Bhatia. It is obvious that they had not been able to utilise the finances to which they had a right and which would have certainly helped them in making their life better and comfortable. It would be too inequitous at this stage to force them with another bout of litigation which may spell over yet another period of sixteen years. It is obvious that they had not been able to utilise the finances to which they had a right and which would have certainly helped them in making their life better and comfortable. It would be too inequitous at this stage to force them with another bout of litigation which may spell over yet another period of sixteen years. If perhaps the point with regard to jurisdiction was taken in the first instance, Poonam Bhatia and her daughter would have knocked at right place for justice and all this valuable time would not have been lost. It may be true that the point relating to jurisdiction going to the root of the case can be agitated at any stage but that is only when the Court might permit so. In the facts of the present case, the Court finds that returning petition under Section 372 of the Act to Poonam Bhatia and her daughter and asking them to obtain the desired relief from another forum, at this stage, would cause untold misery and hardship to them and to avoid the same, is always the first anxiety of every Court. 10. Having held that the appellants should not be permitted to agitate competence of petition under Section 372 of the Act before the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, no occasion arises to deal with the matter any further but since the parties have addressed lengthy arguments it would be worthwhile to determine as to whether the District Judge, Jaipur City had jurisdiction to entertain and try petition under Section 372 of the Act even though the discussion and the decision on the point mentioned above may be academic. Before, we may however take the said exercise into hand, in context of the relevant provisions of the Act, it would be worthwhile to first examine as to even though Sudershan Bhatia might have been a citizen of Canada as well, whether he was ordinarily residing in Jaipur. Primarily, the answer to the question posed before us would