Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 4175 (MAD)

R. Rajeswari v. .

2013-12-12

N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, P.DEVADASS

body2013
JUDGMENT P. Devadass, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge returning the Original Petition for issuance of Succession Certificate to be presented before the Court having competent jurisdiction, the petitioners have preferred this Original Side Appeal. 2. The appellants trace their relationship to one Thiru G. Ravichandran, who died in Coimbatore while serving in ICICI Bank, Karur. His legal heirs have sought for issuance of Succession Certificate to claim the amounts due to them from the bank. 3. The learned Single Judge, referring to Section 371 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 came to the conclusion that there was no movable or immovable property situate within the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this Court and thus directed the returning of the Original Petition to the appellants to be presented before the competent Court. 4. Aggrieved, the appellants have directed this Original Side Appeal. 5. Mr.A.P.Balasubramani, learned counsel for the appellants would contend that inasmuch as the Regional Office of ICICI Bank, which has to pass the sanction order, is situate in Chennai, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Original Petition. The learned counsel also would submit that this Court has concurrent jurisdiction in this matter and besides the District Judge, this Court can entertain the Original Petition. In this connection, the learned counsel cited M.SURESH v. B.SUMATHI AND ANOTHER (AIR 2008 Madras 18). 6. We have perused the materials on record; the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, and the decision cited. 7. As per Section 2(bb) of the Indian Succession Act, the term "District Judge" means Judge of a Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. Section 300 of the Act confers concurrent jurisdiction to the High Court. So, High Court can also exercise the powers conferred on the District Judge under the Act. Thus, the Judge sitting on the original side of the High Court, has concurrent jurisdiction with the District Judge in all testamentary matters (See MANIKLAL SHAH v. HIRALAL SHAW, AIR 1950 Cal 377 ). As per Section 371 of the Act, the District Judge within whose jurisdiction, the deceased originally resided at the time of his death, or, if at that time he has no fixed place of residence, the District Judge, within whose jurisdiction any part of the property of the deceased may be found, may grant certificate. 8. As per Section 371 of the Act, the District Judge within whose jurisdiction, the deceased originally resided at the time of his death, or, if at that time he has no fixed place of residence, the District Judge, within whose jurisdiction any part of the property of the deceased may be found, may grant certificate. 8. The question whether besides the District Judge of the concerned District this Court also has jurisdiction to issue the succession certificate, cropped up before this Court in M.SURESH v. B.SUMATHI AND ANOTHER (AIR 2008 Madras 18), wherein this Court referring to the said definition given in Section 2(bb) and Sections 300 and 371 of the Indian Succession Act, has answered positively that besides the District Judge of the District concerned, this Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction has concurrent jurisdiction in the matter of issuing Letters of Administration, Probate and Succession Certificate. It is based on residence or owning of property – movable or immovable in both the jurisdictions partly. 9. So far as the present case is concerned, deceased G.Ravichandran died while he was ordinarily residing in Coimbatore. He is a native of a village in Tiruvarur District. Even the letter dated 7.8.2012 issued by the ICICI Bank, Coimbatore Branch states that the amounts are to be disbursed from the Coimbatore Office. Thus, the amounts are lying in the Coimbatore Branch. No movable or immovable property of G.Ravichandran lies within the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this Court. Thus, the appellants cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. 10. In the circumstances, the learned Single Judge correctly ordered returning of the Original Petition for presenting it before the Court having competent jurisdiction. 11. For the foregoing reasons, this Original Side Appeal is dismissed and, as directed by the learned Single Judge, liberty is given to the appellants to present the Original Petition for issuance of succession certificate before the competent court. Inasmuch as no adjudication was rendered in this Court in this Original Petition, the appellants are entitled to the refund of the stamp duty paid as per Rules. No costs.